Equilibrium: Homily = Intuititive Dialogue

I thought of so many titles for this blog entry, but found trouble reaching a decision because the scope of this article is so broad and detailed, while it bounds between momentous bits of wisdom of faith as if the intellect and the soul were mere play toys (not to sound pretentious!).

I have so much to discuss! This afternoon (from 1:30 - 2:45pm), I had my weekly Gospel Reading, Homily, Communion and Anointment from my in-home chaplain, and we had such an invigorating conversation that engaged me and drew me into deep contemplation and questioning: healthy questioning about my faith and my experiences.

The main themes of this article, which synopsizes my Reverend's Homily and our incorporated dialogue, are Congregation or Community vs. Church Leadership or Institution; Exclusion from faith Communities; The Resiliency of faith and Its Survival; The Equilibrium of Binary Occurrences in Faith (Yin/Yang, Jesus Christ/The Devil, Bliss/Pain, Fulfillment/Suffering, etc.); (again as in other Homilies) The Discovery of New Gifts and Pathways Toward Reaching Our Full Potential in Faith and in Life in God's Eyes; The "OctoMom" Debate, Faith and Recovery, etc.

I hope that if you can make it through this lengthy, ambitious article you might find some delightful tickle or titillating twists of intellect and faith (two virtues that so often seem a dichotomy) that inspire you to examine and strengthen your own relationship with God—the Father, and to continue your journey toward Salvation and Enlightenment through deep thought and study and debate.

Be blessed, my friends! For I would like to share my blessings with you all! Let me know what you think of the arguments in this article and about my relationship with my caring, stoic, unoffensive priest who visits me weekly for soul searching & revelation. What a gift! What an honor!

St. Andrei Rublev, "St. John the Apostle." [Illustration]
standreirublevicons.com, ©2008 (March 20, 2009).

The Gospel acc. to John
Chapter 6 : Verses 52 - 71

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is the bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live forever.
59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is a hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak to you are spirit; and they are life.
64 But there are some of you that believe not: for Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore, said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will you also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou has the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
71 He spoke of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon; for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

"The Gospel acc. to John 6:52-71," The Holy Bible v.King James..
[Religious Lit.] Paradise Press, Inc. ©2006 (March 20, 2009).

During today's Homily and discussion with my in-home chaplain, Rev. Stephen Bartlett-Re, I found myself immersed in deep thought and conversation, constantly rebutting my priest's messages to me by asking questions or by offering alternative personal views on matters of religion and faith. It was a great dialogue which left me inspired to record much of what was discussed again in a blog entry.

As Fthr. Stephen calls himself an intuitive thinker (as am I) and not a linear thinker, our conversation was rather rambling and curvaceous in its style, so it's difficult synopsizing the themes of our discussion in a logical format; because we let the conversation: a nontraditional though very personalized Homily, flow through and around ideas, examining each one of them briefly as they came into discussion.

But I will try to condense the Homily in an intelligible manner, so that readers of this blog entry might fully comprehend and be inspired by the immense wisdom that was shared spontaneously between two friends in Faith.

Before Fthr. Stephen read of the Gospel, we had a lengthy conversation that was ignited by a realization that there is a distinct difficulty in the GLBTQ community for men & women to practice a religion in a proper congregation of any denomination, while its easier for them to be disconnected from a church and yet to retain an enduring faith in God—The Father, and his sacrifice: his only son, Jesus Christ.

We both noticed how difficult it has been in our lives to find a church community that is accepting and welcoming and loving of us as gay men (or merely as anonymous individuals, even; regardless of our sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, gender, creed—or because of it?). Fthr. Stephen suggests that women in all fashions of the church are usually more welcoming than men (even in non-faith communities) in general, and men are more stoic & reserved and uninviting.


This, I proclaimed indignantly, was the reason why the gay community is so weak in faith and elsewhere in social life and community. Rev. Stephen agreed with me with a nod, a smile, and a confirming, concise response, "Exactly." He then described his personal experience living in Europe, in order to demonstrate how Anglo-Saxon/Americans have a tendency to compartmentalize their lives and sternly separate faith from function—contrary to Europeans.

He said that, in Europe, one can move in between and around the various aspects of one's personality without offending anyone, without being judged, and without negatively affecting the natural flow of conversation. In Europe, you can live as your true self and speak harmoniously of sexual orientation and religion in the same sentence.

Fthr. Stephen then continued to emphasis the obvious distinction between Religion & Faith, and between institutional leadership & congregational leadership in the Church. One is community-driven; it thrives on the strength of a small close knit group of parishioners. One is a megalithic administration that values more the increase of their already expansive wealth over parishioners as a community of individual followers of one common Faith. And lastly, there's the independent, rejected outcast of the Church, who still manages to salvage, nurture and grow his own Faith and Practice privately.

But community is primarily responsible for the survival of the Church, and many gay men & women (such as the parishioners of the Holy Redeemer Catholic Church in the Castro District of San Francisco, who blindly accept the bigotry and judgment against their lifestyles and values in sermon and in practice of the Church leadership & community, and still nonetheless follow along, deftly silencing any impulse toward rebuttal of what they hear and see from their conservative heterosexual church members and clergy; because they want (they need) to stay part of this particular Faith Community.


The truth is that in every group or community (or even political organization), there are unique rules and regulations, mores & maxims that members must obey, rather than risk disintegrating the community through internal strife and disagreement. Members of a community (social, religious, political or otherwise) must abandon or quench some of their most potent, inspired values and ideas for the sake of the group maintaining its salience.

The dialogue about faith and the GLBTQ communities in America took a biting, sardonic tone, when it was turned toward current pop culture news & events by Fthr. Stephen's mentioning of the "OctoMom." What he revealed to me about the "OctoMom", based on news he had heard in conversation with colleagues and in reading various international news journals, was actually very revelatory—although tragically ironic or an oxymoron (even worse!). He explained that there is a certain potently vocal group of Christian Fundamentalist Church leaders who have begun to argue that the "OctoMom" phenomenon is the fault of the Homosexuals.

"What!? Why in the world? How in the world could they come to that conclusion?" I questioned. Rev. Stephen explained further that the Fundamentalist Christian Right Wing community is circulating the idea that this poor woman felt obligated to birth all eight babies because she was "fighting to preserve the Heterosexual race" against a detrimentally prolific propagating of gay people all over the World!!

I was stunned, shocked, appalled! Primarily, because I distinctly remember viewing a RadarTV.com television interview with the "OctoMom", where she defensively confessed in her own uniquely reasonable and rational way that she "wouldn't put the kids up for adoption, and...could have never killed the embryos, because they were human life. That'd be murder!"

What's so ironic is that this particular rationale: the obligation to produce or "save" life because unfertilized embryos are human beings, is the same rationale that serves as the backbone of all Right Wing Christian Fundamentalist arguments against Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research—research that may just very well lead to the curing of many of humankind's most devastating diseases and infirmities, and may one day prove to see the paralyzed take their "first steps on Earth."


So it just logically seems to me that the "OctoMom" and her fourteen children are the direct product of Conservative Fundamentalists and of the extreme pro-life rhetoric and values of the Christian Church or some far Right (but horribly wrong!) Denomination; and the phenomenon is not the fault of a gay population take over. Funny though! Chances are that at least 6 of her children will end up struggling with their sexual identity in their adolescence and turn out to be gay or lesbian. Hah Hah!

See! We are taking over! It's our own covert operation to progressively eliminate the entire Heterosexual Race, but that would only be possible if Darwin's theories of "Survival of the Fittest" & "Evolution" were sound & true. The Christians would never admit to That! Oh God! Can you imagine? It would turn the world in spirals downward so low we'd all be engulfed in the flames at the core of the Earth and suffer eternally in Purgatory!! Sense the cynicism and sarcasm? Hell, I couldn't make it any more blatantly obvious. Hehehehe!

Upon the frustrating end to the "OctoMom" topic, Fthr. Stephen read some of the verses of today's Gospel (the first half to 2/3) and began to focus in to discuss the essence of his Homily. The scripture reads (and I paraphrase; because we all have the right to take certain liberties with the Bible, as it has been so many times so loosely and biasedly translated; and because, I'm not much of a fan of the King James Version translation that I've cited at the start of this article): Whoso eateth of the flesh of the Son and drinketh of his blood will live forever! That statement, in and of itself, represents one of the many core values or sentiments of our religion.

Rev. Stephen enlighted me by guiding me to the realization that this is an open, non-prejudicial or non-segregatory statement. In this simple, succinct statement, there is not mention of anything remotely related to classifications based on race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status or sin. All that one needs to be worthy of eternal life in the emaculate bliss of Heaven is to have faith enough to believe that the bread of Christ is the flesh of Christ; and the wine, his blood.

Eternal life is our gift for having faith enough to eat of the flesh of Jesus and drink of his blood: a gruesome, cannabilistic, vampyric action or simply a symbolic gesture: an expression of our profoundly complex individual Faith in God and in the Life, Death and the Miracles of his only son, Jesus Christ. "It's about the fundamentals not the Fundamentalists," Fthr. Stephen declared. "As Paul the Apostle preached, Absolutely nothing can get between us and God's love for each of us!" he added.

Bringing the dialogue in a complete circle, limiting any tangential sway from the crux of his message: his Homily, Fthr. Stephen argued again of the conflict between Church Community and Church Leadership (Congregation vs. Institution), believing that when conflict arises between the two and a follower is admonished and rejected by the religious community, faith can still survive outside the Church.

For example, in Ancient empirical Japan, all religious institutions were systematically abolished by the Empire, but the Faith and the Practices of Buddhism & Confucionism have nontheless survived until today, thousands of years! Fthr. Stephen also gave the example of the Catholic Revival and the development of his own Old Catholic or Anglo-Catholic Faith during the time of the Catholic Reformation before Vatican II, when certain ancient traditions were abandonned, only to be scavanged up by derilect, Old Catholic priests who would perserve them and let them survive through history.

A religious institution can attempt to destory its fundamentals—tearing apart sacred vestaments; melting down priceless chalices & crucifixes, standards & staffs for the value of the gold; destroying a rich artistic heritage of traditional iconography all in the name of Modernization—but the fundamental faith remains. Separate demonations dissolve or separate into factions, often in disaccordance and conflict, but as discussed earlier in this article, religious community members learn to quiet many of their urges to argue, so that we all still are able to share the same fundamental Faith in a Higher Power.

We all remain Christian. And, even distant alternatives to Christianity (Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism...Pagan Faiths, even) begin to converge around a certain, fundamentally human belief in what is good, in what is Faith, and in the Divine. Faith survives all conflict or isolation and history's ravaging of traditions, because it is fundamental, not Fundamentalist.


For Church communities to survive (and this relates to the earlier discussion on the Holy Redeemer Catholic Church, situated in the direct center of a thriving gay community, with many gay parishioners), if you want to be a member of a Faith Community (of any community) you must accept certain rules and regulations of that group. It's about maintaining equilibrium.

Where there is good, there is bad—accomplishment; struggle—but the good always prevails; or so Fthr. Stephen argued. But through all of my horrendous experiences over these last six years, I had to argue back: "If it's all a matter of equilibrium, then why has there been such a powerfully destructive imbalance between the positive and the negative in my life?" Rev. Stephen responded with his hands turned up, his elbows in and his shoulders down in a shrug, "That's just the truth of life," he answered back.

Honestly, I'm not sure if that was a sufficient answer for me, but before I could argue against that response, Rev. Stephen returned to the message of one of his previous Homilies (a theme that often reoccurs in his sermons): that he, as a leader of Faith, cannot determine another person's path in life and cannot therefore provide definite, complete answers to the whys and wherefores of the cruelty of Life. That is something that someone has to determine or figure out for themselves, as they progress toward the realization of their full, complete relationship with God in Faith.

He explained again, as he has before, that I am "coming ito a new understanding of my gifts in life." He tried to pet my sore, wounded ego then by quoting a statement from a female Saint of the early 20th Century; "Jobs become obsolete; talents don't!" And he continued the lesson he has often preached to me, by explaining, "It's only in learning to use our new and hidden gifts, that we may grow into our full potential" (again, I paraphrase, but the essence of his holy message is implied in this quotation).

I recognize that I am finding immense fulfillment in discovering my new gifts and pathways toward Salvation and have begun the process of moving forward. I even have a little momentum, but I just have to admit that I also have many handicaps and hangups to stuggle against.

That is when I argued that the struggle and journey toward reaching one's full potential often leads one to realize new discoveries, but it also may often cause us to trip over and over on potholes and missteps. The journey is about battling against the pitfalls and hangups; or, at least, it is about finding an "equilibrium" between the momentum, traction, friction, tread and reversals.

My chaplain then argued that these hangups and tragedies in life are a result of one's constant struggle, especially as a closeted gay adolescent or young man, to fight the mold that society has pushed him into, and we rebel in very reactionary, destructive ways: self-destructive tendencies, which are the result of our lack of self-awareness as young people. Despite all the destruction and failures though, God's love for us endures. That is what we can trust in and count on. That was Fthr. Stephen's ultimate message to me with his Homily today.

And I very much was attentively attuned to his arguments, appreciating the opportunity to share in the extemporaneous development of his Homily through dialogue, discussion, rebuttal and response. This participatory style of preaching through conversation lends itself to both our intuitive, complex, circular, disjunctured intellects, so that we have both been able to stimulate each other's rational though and peaceful non-consiliatory arguments, and to come to realize and engender very remarkable instances of distinct wisdom in Faith.

This is why I am so grateful to have the support of such an engaging, supportive, compassionate, faithful spiritual guide or religious leader involved in my life on a weekly basis, because it keeps me constantly attuned to developments in my relationship with my Higher Power.

These weekly Old Catholic Homily dialogues, combined with weekly Buddhist Meditation & Recovery meetings at the Zen Center - San Francisco with Steven Tierney, Ed.D, CAS (my mentor and dear friend) and with my new Zen Recovery "Sanga" or Faith Community, keeps me primed for some valuable discoveries and realizations about my relationship with God, about the crippling control my disease & addiction have over me, and how only my Faith in the reaching of my full potential in God's eyes, will allow me to overcome my addiction.


I'm well through the first three steps of Recovery (even without a Sponsor yet), and I am constantly practicing the principles of Step 11 on nearly a daily basis. More praying and meditation wouldn't hurt, though! I wouldn't want to jinx my progress! It's about finding equilibrium! I'm not sure if all the 10 & 12 & 15 year recovering addicts I encounter at NA & CMA meetings would necessarily agree with this concept. They would at least argue that there's no place for drug and alcohol abuse & addiction in Equilibrium; because, in fact, active use would only disrupt the balance of our Faith & Spirit constantly, dramatically, viciously.

Once one has gained sobriety and has begun the battle to contol and sustain it, then they might be able to balance all the real, standing, human negatives of life with an even more clear, exaltant, sober experience of the positives—knowing that God's love for us will always endure, and that Enlightenment & Perfection are, yes, realistically attainable.

There is hope and beauty in the World, despite the simultaneous existance of their exact hideous and despairing opposities; and this is a reason to keep fighting to realize one's true gifts in life: to find balance (or even to somewhat expertly control the balance) between the pluses and the minuses. That is the intuitive conclusion I have come to realize by having this Homily today personalized to my particular circumstances and by continuing my participation in the study of these religious teachings, through the platform and outlet of this blog exercise.

I am grateful to have this opportunity to collect, record and publish my thoughts to the world. Even though, my followeres are few; I maintain quiet, serene, satisfied hope that maybe (just maybe) one day the writing of my opinions, thoughts and curious contemplations will move some people to strengthen their Faith and their beliefs and their morals and their intellect. And to maybe (just maybe) one day have more people join me in dialogue to help boarden our minds & our own beliefs.

That is what I hope I might gain from this blog endeavor, and that is where I will end my pontications for now. Thank you for reading! Please be encouraged to post your own thoughts as comments on this blog entry or on others. Ideally, I would aslo like this blog to be used as a way to develop a connection with a wider network of friends and supporters. That would be great! Thank You! Peace Out! Cheers! Namaste!

In God's Love...
Most Sincerely,
Matt(e)o | QHereKidSF
Matthew Blanchard
San Francisco, CA

SAY NOTHING OF MY RELIGION. IT IS KNOWN TO GOD & MYSELF ALONE.
IT'S EVIDENCE BEFORE THE WORLD IS TO BE SOUGHT IN MY LIFE: IF IT
HAS BEEN HONEST & DUTIFUL TO SOCIETY THE RELIGION WHICH HAS
REGULATED IT CANNOT BE A BAD ONE.
— Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

THE TRUE MEANING OF RELIGION IS THUS NOT SIMPLY MORALITY,
BUT MORALITY TOUCHED BY EMOTION.
— Matthew Arnold (1822-1888), 'Literature & Dogma,' preface to 1883 ed.

IF YOU CAN'T HAVE FAITH IN WHAT IS HELD UP TO YOU FOR FAITH, YOU
MUST FIND THINGS TO BELIEVE IN YOURSELF, FOR A LIFE WITHOUT FAITH
IN SOMETHING IS TOO NARROW A SPACE TO LIVE.
— George E. Woodberry

[MB2009.03.20@03:37PMPST]
[MB2009.04.02@08.24AMPST]

ANP : Prop 8 - Did Mormons Go Too Far?

The following video, entitled "Prop 8 - Did Mormons Go To Far?," is footage from the American News Project's reporting on the LDS Church involvement in lobbying and financial giving for the "Yes on 8" Campaign in California, which succeeded in promoting passage of Proposition 8 - a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

I've included the YouTube Video description, as well as two examples of my own extended commentary on the issues yto demonstrate the vehemency and passion of my opinions and to embolden sympathetic readers to fight against religious bigotry disguised as "morality."

As a gay man living in San Francisco (where the movement toward Marriage Equality first erupted in California), I admit to having pointedly biased views, which could be considered derogatory, denigrating and offensive to Mormons, but which should more significantly be viewed as sensitive to and in accordance with the GLBTQ ideology and cause of "Equality for All."

Activists claim that money from the Mormon Church was the deciding factor in passing Proposition 8 in California - banning gay marriage. The church claims to have only spent a few thousand dollars on the campaign, but ANP has uncovered evidence that may expose a caping hole in the claim. ...

American News Project, "Prop 8 - Did Mormons Go Too Far?"
[Video] YouTube®, January 14, 2009. http://www.youtube.com/.
(February 20, 2009 at 4:21AM PST).

COMMENTARY #1 : MySpace™ | QHereKidSF | Matt(e)o

Did the Mormon Church illegally invest direct funds or lobbying efforts in the fight to pass Proposition 8: the ban on gay marriage in California, which was signed into law by the Nov. 4, 2008 General Election ballot measure with only a 4% margin of the votes?

As the above video highlights, we have no way of calculating the actual total amount of monetary expenditures of the Mormon Church on all "Yes on 8" efforts unless the IRS intervenes, demands greater transparency, and determines what qualifies as criminal, "substantial" lobbying efforts?

My personal impressions are that the Mormon Church systematically attacked GLBTQ civil rights proponents with their arguments of "morality," and by actively & extensively mobilizing its parishioners to contribute millions of dollars and thousands of hours of political action toward the fight against the "Gay Agenda," stripping me and my brethren of our fundamental civil rights, and getting away with it by describing their mission as a religious cause of Christ.

It's a travesty, what has happened! Perhaps, when the gay community re-mobilizes to pose a better fight for their rights, we will see the Mormons react much in the same way; only this next time, they might be challenged by the status quo (or even indeed by the IRS) to disclose their complete expenditures of their anti-gay marriage campaign. Then we'll see who wins out!!

Enjoy the video! Let me know what you think of it with a comment or a mail message. It infuriates me! It's truly lamentable, what the Mormons have done! That's just my personal opinion, worthy of feature on my myspace page.

Matt(e)o, "MySpace Profile | About Me | GAY MARRIAGE IN CA...".
[Profile] MySpace™ : A Place For Friends™, February 17, 2009.
http://www.myspace.com/qherekidsf/.
(February 20, 2009 @ 4:57AM PST).

COMMENTARY #2 : Facebook™ | Matthew Blanchard | Message
Linsay, I'm so sorry that it has taken me so long to view and reply to your email here on Facebook. I haven't been paying very much due attention to my Facebook account recently and have fallen behind on replying to emails when necessary and accepting new Friend Requests.

I did however want to reply to this email in particular after viewing the video attached to it, to thank you for sending it to me. I find the news report to be infuriating but matter of fact, and full of information that I did not in any way find surprising.

The Mormon church is a corrupt institution, and in my limited, biased perspective, they are the primary party responsible for the passage of Proposition 8: a ban on gay marriage in California. The truth is evident in the reporting: the Mormon Church expended exceedingly high amounts of the institution's own money to organize a campaign and lobby for its own parishioners to fight for "Yes on 8" by donating monies to the media campaigns designed by the Church's contractors, by phone banking and by flooding the streets of suburban California with "Yes on 8" propaganda posters.

The tens of millions of dollars that the Church and its parishioners contributed to the campaign far exceeded the total amount of donations to the cause by any other individual, institution, political action committee, faith-based organization or corporation nationwide. Like I said, I view the Mormon Church as the party principally responsible for the passage of the amendment to the California Constitution banning same-sex marriage.

We'll have to see as the fight continues in the courts and in politics how the Church reacts, and if the IRS is going to demand any increased transparency from the LDS. I hope that as the fight continues, the Church is called out for its excessive, illegal lobbying and financial contribution to the anti-gay political agenda. And I am a proponent of the cause to have the Church stripped of its tax-exempt status due to their criminal activity.

Beyond that, I'm at a loss for words. I'm interested though in hearing your thoughts on the matter. You didn't include any text response to the video in your email here on Facebook, so I cannot glean much of your perspective on the dueling anti-gay and pro-equality agendas. I'd like to hear what you have to say about the video and the entire culmination and continuation of events related to the fight for equal marriage rights in California and to the Mormon Church's involvement in the anti-gay marriage "morality" campaign.

I'm sure I'd consider your opinion to be astute, wise, socially aware, culturally competent and compassionate. I look forward to continuing a conversation with you on the matter. Please respond soon! Thanks! Hope all is well!

BTW, how's school? Are you excelling in your studies of journalism? What kind of extra-curricular or professional development activities are you involved in? Are you enjoying your education and your new academic lifestyle? I certainly hope so! Hope to hear all about it real soon. Peace Out! Cheers! Namaste!

Regards,
Matt(e)o | QHereKidSF
Matthew Blanchard

http://qherekidsf.blogspot.com/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/matthewblanchard/
http://www.pandora.com/people/mblanchard79/
http://www.wmalumni.com/member/mblanchard2002/

IF ONE ADVANCES CONFIDENTLY IN THE DIRECTION OF HIS DREAMS,
AND ENDEAVORS TO LIVE THE LIFE HE HAS IMAGINED, HE WILL MEET
WITH A SUCCESS UNEXPECTED IN COMMON HOURS.
— Henry David Thoreau

TO DO ANYTHING IN THIS WORLD WORTH DOING, WE MUST NOT
STAND BACK SHIVERING AND THINKING OF THE COLD AND DANGER,
BUT JUMP IN, AND SCRAMBLE THROUGH AS WELL AS WE CAN.
— Sydney Smith

THE GREAT ENEMY OF TRUTH IS VERY OFTEN NOT THE LIE,
DELIBERATE, CONTRIVED AND DISHONEST, BUT THE MYTH,
PERSISTENT, PERSUASIVE AND UNREALISTIC.

— John F. Kennedy

M. Blanchard, "Message: Prop 8 - Did Mormons Go Too Far?"
[e-Correspondence] Facebook™, February 19, 2009.
http://www.facebook.com/.
(February 20, 2009 at 5:18AM PST).

In a final effort to sum up my commentary on the ANP Internet video broadcast embedded above, I will simply reiterate that my opinions & perspective are skewed by prejudice, bias & ignorance of the Mormon Church and its followers and by my own vigorous, audacious adherence to the "Gay Agenda."

The description of the YouTube™ video by ANP, however, speaks speculatively of the evidence of fault in the claim of the church that it only spent mere thousands of dollars (not tens of millions) campaigning against Marriage Equality.

If the ANP's evidence proves valid & true, then the argument, that the LDSs were the one institution and group of parishioners primarily responsible for the passage of a ban on gay marriage in California, holds true. I want wholeheartedly to agree with and believe in each and every key point of argument in this video broadcast, because I am angry, and I am hurt.

Because, I am disappointed that my fundamental rights were thrown in the shit can to fester & rot, where I lay a muck as vulgar excrement of injustice & inequality...where I am deemed decidedly...fundamentally, an immoral, lesser person for being gay (not having decided to be gay).

I am angry, and I am sad. This is the state of mind I've succumbed to after experiencing firsthand the equally potent prejudice and immorality of the Religious Right. But I live in San Francisco. What do I have to complain about?

Here, we are invigorated and empowered by community-wide appeals to continue the fight of "Equality for All!" Here, we have hope and faith in the fundamental maxim that declares, "justice will prevail!"

Here, we chronicle, commend and encourage each tiny tiptoe toward progress change, and toward a actualization of our damned, dear, determined ideals of equal civil rights...fundamental rights, not deferred or detracted, but emboldened and glorified.

Here, we continue the fight to "Defeat H8!" We're so fortunate to be here, in the great "Gay Mecca"...The Great Fog City: San Francisco! AMEN! Alleluia! Need I say more?

PIOUS CELIBACY : Nobler Children of God!

Every week, on Fridays, since I was discarded as a patient of Laguna Honda Hospital & Rehabilitation Center after recuperating for three months after my first craniofacial reconstruction (January 30, 2008), the generous, faithful, altruistic Hospital Chaplain comes to visit me in my home to offer me holy communion, a reading of the Gospel, his homily and anointment. This week's "sante scritture" were readings of the Holy Gospel according to John: Chapter 6, Verses 35-42 & 48-51. A discussion on his homily follows an image of El Greco's painting, Saint John the Apostle and the text of the Holy Gospel.


"John The Apostle, Saint: painting by El Greco." Online Photograph,
Britannica Student Encyclopedia. Jan. 2, 2009,
http://student.britannica.com/eb/art-87622/.

The Holy Gospel acc. to John 6:35-42, 48-52

35 … And Jesus siad unto them, I am the bread of life: He that cometh to me shall not hunger; and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.
36 … But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believeth not.
37 … All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; And him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 … For I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of Him that sent me.
39 … And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that all which he hath given me I should Lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 … And this is the will of Him that hath sent me, that every one which seeth the son, and believeth in Him, may have everlasting life: And I will raise him up on the last day.
41 … The Jews then murmured to him, because he said, I am the bread which cometh down from heaven.
42 … And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that he saith, I came down from Heaven?
48 … I am the bread of life.
49 … Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 … This is the Bread which cometh down from Heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51 … I am the living bread which came down for Heaven: If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever; And the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the World.
52 … The Jews therefore strove among themselves; Saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

"The Holy Gospel acc. to John 6:35-42, 48-52."
The Holy Bible: King James Version, p. 401.
Paradise Press, Inc., 2006.

PIOUS CELIBACY: Nobler Children of God!
Or The Unfathomably Complex Individual Experience in Faith:
Reaching Closer to God Through "Group/Family" Relationships

Reverend Steven Bartlett-Re's January 2, 2009 Homily for the readings of the Holy Gospel according to John: Chapter 6, verses 35-42 & 48-52 was born of our preliminary, pre-offertory discussion on current world events as they relate to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and on the antisemitism of Saint John the Apostle and therefore of all Christians argued by an elite group of fundamentalist Jewish religious leaders in contemporary theological studies.

Father Stephen compared the disingenuous belief of Jews in Jesus Christ, as depicted by the Holy Gospel according to John in the above verse and the historical tendency of various religious groups to factionalize and incite internal conflict within the (Roman) State, to the conflict between Jews & Muslims today, as well as to the disputes over Marriage Equality in the USA between the far-right Christian Fundamentalists and the GLBTQ Community today.

He then related the Christian/Gay disputes to the modern argument for "traditional family," born of an original Faith in Christ that was albeit all together egocentric and not at all family-oriented. From there developed Father Stephen's Homily on Pious Celibacy as the perfect path toward redemption, on the unfathomably complex, individual experience of Faith in God, and on the role of "group/family" relationships in the deepening of our realization of that Faith.

Father Stephen first argued that Jesus Christ was not pro-family; but instead, Christ preached that the journey into God's graces is an individual experience of learning unique to each Believer. As opposed to "group/family" relationships, Celibacy was considered the ultimately perfect & righteous path to Redemption. "Group/family" relationships only distracted the believer from his calling, blockading his path toward Salvation with inconvenient, inconsequential, troublesome distractions & conflicts.

Historical theological studies prove that most of Christ's original followers were celibate & unmarried (or divorced) and not bound to any family. Christ, in turn, created a "family" of followers of sorts, tangling his disciples in distinctly human struggles to define their relationships, hierarchy, customs, values, mores, etc.

Modern Christian values define the "family" as the center or the foundation of our Faith and of our journey toward Salvation. While Christ originally meant for his followers to learn strictly from their individual experiences in order to define and strengthen their Faith in God, today's Christians allow for a strengthening of Faith through learning of the sublime complexities of that Faith and connection to God based on "group/family" experiences and relationships.

Our journey toward Salvation remains an uniquely individual experience, only supported by our relationships and interactions with others. In this regard, Father Stephen believes that, as a Chaplain, he can not, for a believer wanting of answers and absolution to his doubting Faith, define another's individual relationship with God and "family." He can only guide them to a righteous path with scripture and teachings on godly Faith and pious action.

Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transgender People's social history in a distinct way mimics this thesis on the value of "group/family" relationships and the complexity of the individual journey toward Salvation. It can be concluded from simple observation of their social interactions that older generations of GLBTQ Americans often beg for a return to simpler times earlier in our Community's history (c.1950-1960's), when only the right to proclaim and exhibit one's love of another was essential and not confounded by complex social mores, maxims and politics. GLBTQ elders often seek a return to a time when they existed comfortably in small, exclusive, clandestine groups that functioned as their surrogate "family."

Modern GLBTQ Culture & Community relationships and the journey toward a completely legitimized, legalized, accepted social identity (i.e., ≈ Salvation) are made more complex and deepened through shared experiences learned in larger, more open social groups (i.e., the GLBTQ "Family") and through generations. In this way, we are led to our present day struggles on the path toward Redemption: the fight for GLBTQ Civil Rights & Marriage Equality. The question remains...What's better: the life of a celibate ascetic gay believer or unions of GLBTQ couples in marriage legalized by the State and sanctified by our religious institutions?

Ironically, Modern Right-Wing Christian Fundamentalists align with older generations of the GLBTQ Community in their desire for simpler things, simpler relationships, simpler ways of being, a simpler Faith in God and a simpler journey toward Salvation, calling no heed to the influence of complex modern social relationships on their experience in God's Love. This system that strictly values former, less complex individual pathways toward Redemption makes these two vehemently opposed communities, in my opinion, prejudicial, exclusive, limited and ignorant in thoughts, values and customs.

The primary difference here between these two binary antithetical communities is that Right-Wing Christian Fundamentalists believe that their "institutions" of "traditional family" and "traditional marriage" are stricture that they are obligated to impose & enforce on all members of Society, regardless of Faith (or absence there of), while older GLBTQ generations do not impose their desire for simpler social relationships on their fellow community members, but rather they exist as an exclusive, discriminatory and relatively weak (again, in my opinion) social network that withholds or negates any of their potentially direct impact on the greater majority of Modern Gays & Lesbians.

Thus, Pious Celibacy as the ultimately perfect and higher route toward Salvation under God is an antiquated equation. In modern Christianity, according to Reverend Stephen Bartlett-Re, followers of Christ (gay & straight alike) should be guided to follow their own individual paths toward Redemption and to define their own unique relationship with and Faith in God by the influences and teachings of their worldly social experiences in groups and in "family." That is a more just, pious journey in God's Love. Preachers of Faith cannot proselytize and suggest exact redeeming actions or beliefs, but must guide their followers toward a discovery and a defining of their unique relationships with God through scripture, teachings and individual "group/family" experiences.

"Homily on the Holy Gospel acc. to John 6: 35-42, 48-52."
Spoken Word by Reverend Stephen Bartlett-Re,
January 2, 2009 1:47PM.

It has been my aim with this intimate, thoughtful essay on Faith and "family" to provoke profound contemplations & questions on the conflicts between Right-Wing Christian Fundamentalists and the GLBTQ Community, on our unique, unfathomably complex individual experiences in God's Love and on the influence of social relationships on our far-reaching, righteous paths toward a realization of Self and a realization of Faith. By offering a discussion on my intimate conversations with my in-home Chaplain, I mean to reveal and share with others the profound wisdom and guidance I receive from my personal leader in Faith.

I do not assume that every reader of this blog entry will whole-heartily agree with the conclusions presented in this discussion, nor do I seek to selfishly impose my beliefs on others. I do hope however that some random faithful soul might be touched by these teachings and have their Faith in God strengthened and stimulated by this sharing. If anything, readers could at least easily chuckle at the ironical comparison we've made between two diametrically opposed groups: Right-Wing Christian Fundamentalists and the GLBTQ Community.

May God bless each of us in our Faith with real instances of prosperity, wisdom, learning, achievements and grace in His Glory through our individual experiences and on our path, this year, further toward Redemption, and may we all be positively & profoundly influenced on our journey toward Salvation through diverse, righteous, valuable social relationships & experiences!

May we find peace amidst turmoil and strife! May we find absolution of our trespasses against others and against God, the Father! May we each have hope and trust in our capacity to grow and develop as Children of God (or of Karma and Chi gong) and in our capacity to reach ever further toward our complete realization of Self and of Faith! And finally: May we be blessed by God and by auspicious Karmic wisdom in 2009!

Beliefnet.com : The Rick Warren Interview

Rick Warren, the megalithic media phenomenon, much-acclaimed pastor of Sattleback Church and financial supporter of Porposition 8 in California: the Constitutional Amendment banning Same-Sex Marriage on November 4, 2008, remarks on Gay Marriage & Divorce in a Beliefnet.com video interview, going so far in his opposition to Gay Marriage as to equate it with the legalization of marriage based on incest, pedophilia and polygamy.


In further investigating the Rick Warren matter on weblogs and in online news journals, I came across a political commentary posted by one Kathryn Kolbert on the CNN.com Politics website, entitled: "Commentary: Choosing Rick Warren was a Mistake." Her comments were extremely revealing to me, as I am sure they were to many curious readers.

Kolbert succinctly argued against President-elect Barack Obama's choice to have Pastor Rick Warren give the pivotal, very significant and solemn inspirational invocation at his inauguration on January 20, 2009, by demonstrating in a very matter of fact manner all the ways in which Warren (a self-reputed "moderate" and "bridge-builder") exemplifies the anti-freedom & anti-gay values of the Evangelical Religious Right.

She contends with the anger & disappointment of the Nation's "progressive activists who worked so hard to elect Barack Obama" by admitting first that some people might be a bit confused by such attestations & discouragements from the extreme political left. She goes on to elucidate the whys & wherefores for the injustice and damned near disgrace of choosing Warren as invocateur for the inauguration.

Mrs. Kolbert says with regards to Warren's opposition to Marriage Equality in California that "it's not just his support for Prop. 8 that is so galling to equality activists. It's that Warren, in an interview with Beliefnet.com, has since equated allowing loving same-sex couples to get married with redefining marriage to permit incest and pedophilia."

Curious as I was, I set out to find this Beliefnet.com video interview with Pastor Rick Warren, and easily found it with a keyword search on their website. I was shocked, appalled and disgusted! Here was a man, a prominent moderate Evangelical leader, justifying anti-equality bigotry and hate-speech by actually agreeing with the interviewer that Gay Marriage is equivalent to incest, pedophilia & polygamy and by always referring back to the self-assured crux of the conversation: that it's not any matter iof whether or not Warren is opposed to Gay Marriage or Civil Unions; what is truly significant is that he opposes a redefinition of Traditional Marriage—as if to hide the bigotry, prejudice and hate behind a vapid veil of more solemn faith in a five thousand year old tradition!

The following is a dictation of the final segment of the Beliefnet.com Rick Warren Interview: On Gay Marriage & Divorce. But better yet for the full dramatic effect, just follow the previous link to view the video for yourself. The text of the interview:

RICK WARREN: "I fully support equal rights for all Americans [...] The issue for me is: I'm not opposed to [Civil Unions] as much as I'm opposed to the redefinition of a five thousand year old definition of marriage. I'm opposed to having a brother & a sister being together and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marring 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 those are equivalent to gays getting married?"

RICK WARREN: "Oh, I do! For five thousand years marriage has been defined by every single culture and every single religion...this is not a Christian issue—Buddhists, Muslims, Jews. Historically, Marriage is a man and a woman, so I'm opposed to that.

"And the reason I supported Prop. 8 really was a free speech issue, because if...first, the court over-read the will of the people, but second, there were all kinds of threats that if it did not pass, any pastor could be considered doing hate speech if he shared his views that he didn't think homosexuality was the most natural way for relationships. And that would be hate speech. Well, to me, we should have freedom of speech, ok...Can we do this in a civil way?

"I have many gay friends. I've eaten dinner in gay homes. No church has probably done more for people with AIDS than Sattleback Church. Kay and I have given millions of dollars out of the portraiture of people getting AIDS through gay relationships, so they can't accuse me of homophobia. I just don't believe in the redefinition of marriage."

(S. Waldman, "Rick Warren Interview: On Gay Marriage & Divorce,"
Beliefnet.com Interviews Rick Warren | The Rick Warren Interview,
Retrieved on December 22, 2008 at 11:20AM.)

Like I've written already, I find this rhetoric appalling, shocking and disgraceful!! Funny though, how Pastor Warren speaks as though this is a global, worldly issue by including Buddhists, Muslims & Jews in his argument for Traditional Marriage, when "historically" speaking, many world religions have once (or still do) give credence and legitimacy to incestuous, polygamist, pedophile relationships between men and women; thus, invalidating his entire overture right from the start.

After seeing this video interview, I realize ever more so that I am extremely disappointed and angry with Obama's pick for his inaugural invocation. Giving such a significant role in such a major event in our Nation's history to a man who blatantly and guiltlessly promotes hate-speech and homophobia (YES! HOMOPHOBIA, Rick Warren! I'd call him a homophobe, wouldn't you?) is a bold, shameless affront to all the just and fair-minded equality activists that supported Barack Obama's Campaign for President.

I am personally offended and ultimately very disappointed that I have put so much faith in Barack Obama as a proponent of Change and as a stalwart advocate for equality, only to be let down by his choice here.

I wrote in an entry in this blog, entitled "Rev. Rick Warren: An Anti-Gay Invocation," that I could understand Obama's choice of Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration, because, as the President-elect himself argues, he has been trying to promote a dialogue between conflicting political and social camps by bringing together a diverse array of people to participate in this monumental occasion. He says that is what his campaign was all about, and I agreed with him, wholeheartedly!

But, as a gay man who dreams one day of escaping the aesthetic judgments and prejudices of the average homosexual, passing beyond my disfigurement and finding a relationship with a man that can develop openly, honestly and lovingly into a committed union: a Marriage, I can not and will not support Barack Obama's choice to have Rick Warren, a bigoted & hate-mongering Evangelical, give the opening invocation at the 2009 Presidential Inauguration. It's just not right!

As Kathryn Kolbert remarks in her CNN.com Politics Commentary:

There is no shortage of religioius leaders who reflect the values on which President-elect Obama campaigned and who are working to advance the common good: Rev. Joseph Lewery, who has been selected to give the benediction, is a life-long advocate for justice. There are others like him, and in our increasingly diverse nation, they aren't all Christian.

Rick Warren gets plenty of attention through his books & media appearances and has every right to promote his religious views. But he doesn't need or deserve a position of honor at the inauguration of a President who has given hope to so many Americans by rejecting the politics of division and emphasizing his commitment to constitutional values.

(K. Kolbert, "Commentary: Choosing Rick Warren was a Mistake,"
CNN.com Politics, December 19, 2008 at 9:41AM.
Retrieved on December 22, 2008 at 7:04AM.)

Mrs. Kolbert is right in her conclusions: there are plenty of other American religious leaders that uphold the values that Barack Obama fought for in his Campaign for President and that he could have just as well chosen for the invocation. The socio-political implications of the choice of Rick Warren to give the invocation at the 2009 Presidential Inauguration are grave and divisive, opening the door to so many other arguments against an Obama Presidency, because of Rick Warren's other illicit values concerning as such a women's right to chose, amongst other things (as explained in the Kolbert Commentary).

I in no way can consider myself an allegiant equality activist, for I have had no frontline experience fighting for Marriage Equality and other equal rights for all under the law. I have only begun to voice my opinion on this blog and on comments I've posted to other blogs or news feeds I've read concerning these issues.

I've also associated myself via Facebook™ with ENGAGE to End Discrimination: The Marriage Equality Project, a fledgling, soon to be incorporated nonprofit organization based out of San Francisco, CA and founded by my Facebook™ Friend, Michael Friedman. I haven't been active in their Marriage Equality rallies & protests, but I have subscribed to their RSS feed on Blogger® and Google™ Reader and stay informed of developments within the organization by those means. I can't say that I am an allegiant equality activist, no! But, I can't say that, as a gay man living in California, I am just as equally disappointed and angered by Obama's choice as the best of them. In fact, ...

I can't stand this! I'm irate! Aren't you? Please, give me some feedback! Let me know if I'm letting my easily affected emotions become unhinged by something of little importance; or otherwise, affirm my disappointment & anger and join me in opposing this choice. I eagerly anticipate any feedback or thoughts I receive from my blog followers. This is a dialogue I'd very much like to have; if not, just to calm my nerve!

Maybe the choice of Inauguration Invocation Speaker should have followed more of the effect of decisions on Commencement Speakers for the College of William & Mary (speaking from experience), where candidates are selected based on writing samples and formal public speaking skills, as opposed to on popularity or stature within a particular community. What on Earth is Barack Obama trying to evoke with this choice? I can't find any good in it! Please help!

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

In closing, I must say: Peace Out! And Plenitudes of Pumpernickel & Plum-Pudding Pastries, as well as Cheer, Bliss & Merriment for you this Holiday Season! May you all experience the joy of giving & gratitude and the blessings of good tidings this wintry season. I know that I am grateful to have so many dear friends and family who care so deeply for me. And I'm thankful for the ungodly AWESOME gift that my William & Mary Theatre Assoc. friends purchased for me for Christmas—as some sort of recompense for all the tragedy I have experienced in the last year & a half. I'm eternally grateful to you all. You know who you are! :-) Happy Holidays!!

Rev. Rick Warren : An Anti-Gay Invocation

I am prompted to write this blog entry in reaction to a couple of online CBS News Political Hotsheet Blog articles I read when linked to them after reading The Gay Opinion Blog, a blog of news journal editorials related to GLBT issues that I just began following a week ago.

The Gay Opinion Blog is ripe with commentary and valuable information on the current shifts and balances (or lack there of) in the scales of justice for the GAY RIGHTS movement. The CBS News articles I read online were entitled:

• Obama And The Gay Community
  written by Marc Ambinder, CBS News Chief Political Consultant
  
• Obama Defends Rick Warren's Role At Inauguration
  posted by Kevin Hechtkopf, CBS News Politcal Hotsheet.

Personally, as a stalwart Obama supporter—someone who is energized and exultant in anticipation of his inauguration in less than a month—I have to say that I understand president-elect Barack Obama's choice to have the "New Evangelical" pastor, Right-Wing religious juggernaut celebrity and zealous opponent to Marriage Equality, Rev. Rick Warren give a solemn, meaningful and influential inspirational invocation at the inauguration on January 20, 2009. But I do not appreciate the choice.

As Obama is cited as saying in the second of the two CBS News Political Hotsheet Blog entries I've mentioned, his inauguration is meant to symbolize a connection or "dialogue" between ardently opposed ideologies—political discord previously hinged on decisive, contradictory viewpoints and values—signifying a unification of good will, mutual understanding and respect between conflicting political parties, religious institutions and social groups:

The president-elect stressed that he is a "fierce advocate for equality for gay & lesbian Americans," but said that it was also important for Americans to come together despite disagreements on social issues.

Mr. Obama said the inauguration would include people with a wide variety of view points represented and "that's how it should be."

He also pointed out that he was invited by Warren a few years ago to speak at his church, despite his disagreements with Warren on [Gay Rights issues]. "That dialogue is part of what my campaign has been about," he added."

(K. Hechtkopf, "Obama Defends Rick Warren's Role At Inauguration."
CBS News Political Hotsheet, December 18, 2008.
Retrieved on December 22, 2008 12:50AM).

This idea of "dialogue" was a distinctive element of Obama's campaign for President; no wonder it should be a motif echoed in the character and style of the ceremonies of his Official Oath of Office. "United We Stand!" "Yes We Can!" "The Change We Need!" All are political slogans of a nation's unifying force that brought 53 million people of ever race, ethnicity and creed to the polls on November 4, 2008 to vote for an Obama Presidency.

My support for Obama's tactics as a campaigning, regime-changing politician is strong. Albiet, Obama (like all other major Democratic Candidates for President) may have been a "fierce advocate for equality" for all, but he never had the political gumption or cahones to full-out support Marriage Equality. He (like his adversaries) only supported civil unions, presumingly afraid that full support of Gay Marriage Rights would significantly impede upon his chances of winning the Presidency, causing him to seem far too liberal than he already is. In my opinion, support for civil unions (just and only civil unions) for GLBT Americans falls short of "fierce advocacy of equal rights," for the mere fact that civil unions are not equality under the law.

Supporting civil unions is as far as Obama will go in hailing the call for equal rights of all GLBT Americans, as if it's just enough to be said so as not to offend the more moderate or right-wing of his multitudes of supporters. In choosing such a slanted, half-of-nothing stance on the "issue," Obama saves his own ass, but in doing so, he offends and betrays his strigently loyal gay followers. This is why the choice of Rev. Rick Warren to give the invocation at Obama's inauguration is wrong. The choice is a disgracing affront to all GLBT Americans, especially to all those toiling in the trenches for Marriage Equality, and it fully demonstrates the inherent weakness in Obama's strategy for inclusion and unity: that such "dialogue" is at it's best awfully subjective and terribly biased and is likely to offend or betray at least one class of citizens (in this case, the Gays & Lesbians).

That said, I stick with my aforementioned support of the president-elect, and rightfully, I can not say that I am fully in line with the vehement opposition to the Rick Warren choice protrayed in citations from the same second CBS News Political Hotsheet Blog article:

In The Nation, Sarah Posner wrote the following: "Obama had thousands of clergy to choose from, and the choice of Warren is not only a slap in the face to progressive ministers toiling on the front lines of advocacy and service but a bow to the continuing influence of the religious right in American politics."

"Warren represents the absolute worst of the Democrats' religious outreach, a right-winger masquerading as a do-gooder anointed as the arbiter of what it means to be faithful," she added. (Read the full column.)

(K. Hechtkopf, "Obama Defends Rick Warren's Role At Inauguration."
CBS News Political Hotsheet, December 18, 2008.
Retrieved on December 22, 2008 12:50AM).

In response to the first aforementioned CBS News Poltical Hotsheet Blog article, "Obama And The Gay Community" written by Marc Ambinder (the complete text of which you will find below), I have to say that Ambinder hits the nail on the head. In 1992, the GLBT community was elated that a queer political ally (i.e., Bill Clinton) was entering the Presidency and expected therefore great sweaping changes in favor of our causes, but what we got instead were disappointments and let downs:

One reason the Rick Warren thing is a big deal is because, after Bill Clinton, the gay community is unusually sensitive to getting the shorter angle of presidential triangulation. It is hard to overstate the optimism and excitement that gays and lesbians felt in 1992. But the optimism deflated spectacularly after "Don't Ask, Don't tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act, not to mention President Clinton's sneaky 1996 ad boasting about DOMA, which aired only on Christian radio.

Clinton was willing to say the word "gay" in public and appear in black tie at the Human Rights Campaign dinner, but, in the eyes of the gay political community, his commitment to gay rights vanished both times it counted most.

Relative to other minority groups, the LGBT community is disproportion- ately dependent on the goodwill of the president, because almost all of their big-ticket agenda items are federal laws (the military, DOMA repeal, hate crimes, ENDA, the Permanent Partners Immigration Act, etc.). And relative to other minorities, gays still want and need basic reassurance that they are an ordinary part of American life and politics. So everyone is peering anxiously at Obama wondering if he is going to let them down like Clinton did.

(M. Ambinder, "Obama And The Gay Community."
CBS News Political Hotsheet, December 18, 2008.
Retrieved on December 22, 2008 1:36AM)

The GLBT community IS "disproportionately dependent on the goodwill of the president" for all its grandiose, meaningful, trend-breaking agenda items, but do we need "reassurance that [we] are an ordinary part of American life and politics?" You're damn right, we do! Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals & Transgendered People continue to exist on the extreme periphery of the liberal political agenda and are seen as mere harbingers of doom and ill-fortune by the right-wing Evangelicals. Where do we stand? What force do we have to affect change in our own lives? Or are we just short of powerless, impotent in the political arena?

As a "fierce advocate for equality," Obama should be expecting the scrutiny and judgement of the entire GLBT community in America in his practice to make real the changes we are fighting for. Selecting Rev. Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration was not an intelligent or appropriate choice by Obama; it was a let down: the first of let's hope is not many! We'll just have to wait and see how the Obama Administration responds to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act, not to mention the myriad of concerns of those millions of Americans living with HIV/AIDS, many of whom are important proponents in the fight for Gay Rights.

It's a real shame that The Gay Opinion Blog omitted the final paragraph of the Ambinder article when citing it in their blog entry. That paragraph is an inciteful, intelligent discombobulation of the drastic complexities of the GLBT political identity and ideologies.

Although, I have to say, it's quite obvious this was the view of a politically savvy, heterosexual man, for I don't think that a homosexual, in writing such an article, would so denigrate and ashame the GLBT community with such judgements. A queer author would have striven for a more sympathetic, empowering tone, leaning in favor of the aptitudes and intrinsic equalities of Gays & Lesbians. But that's just my two sense on this whole issue... What do you think?