Posted on

Why This Catholic Supports Marriage Equality

Yesterday many friends changed their Facebook profile pics to a red box with two horizontal lines in the center in support of marriage equality. I did as well, though I was more punk rock about it, selecting a red box with four vertical lines (the logo for the band Black Flag).

Mood music:

[spotify:track:4kFfFe38CRVnTsakUTL4E4]

I doubt all this online activism will influence the US Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage. The justices march to their own drummer. They get to serve for life, free of the political pressure that comes with standing for election. But that doesn’t matter. What does matter is that we all follow our conscience. Mine tells me that the government has absolutely no business defining what marriage — and, more to the point, love — should be about.

That’s at odds with the beliefs of the Catholic Church and I am a devout Catholic. So why go against my church?

For starters, going against the church does not mean going against your faith. I believe Jesus Christ died for my sins and that I owe it to Him to earn that salvation. I haven’t yet. Not even close. But it’s what I strive for. As for Christ’s teachings, the thing that always sticks with me is that we’re all sinners and have no business judging others when our own hands are dirty.

I’ve long believed that the old men who set the rules in the Holy See are wrong about how they approach homosexuality. There’s this notion that a person wakes up one day and decides being gay is a great lifestyle choice. All the people I’ve known over the years who fought against and hid their sexuality have shown me that’s bullshit. They didn’t get a choice. Then they were slaves to shame, escaping through false personas, drugs, and suicide.

Those I’ve known could only live and be a blessing to those around them once they came clean. I’ve seen a lot of friends and family come clean and lead beautiful lives, and I love them dearly for it.

For more on my take on homosexuality, see:

“Gay Haters Or Just Idiots?“

“Racists AND Idiots“

“Depression and Being Gay“

“One More Thing About Being Depressed and Gay…“

My religious beliefs are beside the point, though.

This country is supposed to have a separation between church and state, and that’s for good reason. We’re a nation of many faiths, and we all deserve the freedom to worship God — or to not — as we see fit. If two people love each other and are law-abiding citizens who pay their taxes, the government has absolutely no business making judgments on how such love should be defined. Love is love. If two people of the same sex choose to keep house together, they should be entitled to the same rights straight couples enjoy.

Feel free to disagree.

Marriage equality, punk rock style

Posted on

The Boy Scouts of America Acted Cowardly

Yesterday I opined that the Boy Scouts of America should allow gays into the organization. I suggested that the organization was being cowardly by leaving it up to individual chapters to do the right thing, but a friend disagreed.

Mood music:

[spotify:track:3SHPJOuQ357m5S1AjyNpKU]

Wrote my friend:

At a local level, the scouts are heavily supported by churches and religious groups. An all-out and immediate change would result in a mass exodus of sponsoring organizations, which would lead many troops packs to shut down. By taking this approach, the scouts are looking at evolution vs. revolution, which is probably the best we can expect from a 100-year old organization and which would allow new sponsoring groups to step up and take the places of any group that does not want to continue its association with the Scouts. While not a perfect solution, I think it’s actually the most workable in the short term.

Shortly after he sent that message, the Boy Scouts of America’s executive board voted to put off its decision, sending out this curious statement:

After careful consideration and extensive dialogue within the Scouting family, along with comments from those outside the organization, the volunteer officers of the Boy Scouts of America’s National Executive Board concluded that due to the complexity of this issue, the organization needs time for a more deliberate review of its membership policy. To that end, the executive board directed its committees to further engage representatives of Scouting’s membership and listen to their perspectives and concerns. This will assist the officers’ work on a resolution on membership standards. The approximately 1,400 voting members of the national council will take action on the resolution at the national meeting in May 2013.

It’s curious because Boy Scouts has already spent years kicking this issue around. My friend responded to the announcement with this follow-up email to me: “Now I agree with your cowardly comment.”

This isn’t rocket science. It’s about recognizing that people come in all stripes, and that we all deserve the opportunity to make a positive difference. The Scouts is a fabulous resource for helping people reach their full potential so they can contribute something positive to society. Keeping certain people out because they’re gay, something that’s more a matter of mental and physical development than personal choice, is wrong.

The Boy Scouts are assuming, just as the military did, that a person’s sexual orientation will prevent them from focusing on their duties. That’s horse shit.

The national organization had a golden opportunity to set an important example and allow in people who could really contribute to society with Scout training. It hasn’t wasted the opportunity yet, but yesterday’s delay was embarrassing and shameful.

Boy Scout Discrimination Comic

Posted on

Chick-fil-A Controversy: Free Speech or Corporate Irresponsibility?

Let’s take a short quiz: The controversy over Chick-fil-A’s president opposing gay marriage is a matter of:

  1. First Amendment rights
  2. Corporate irresponsibility
  3. Both
  4. None of the above

Mood music:

[spotify:track:1fU41e5cCCeZddm0Lk8WnJ]

If you ask me, the answer is either C and D, depending on your political and social sensibilities.

Yesterday I wrote that I don’t really care about the controversy because I don’t eat at Chick-fil-A and the story looked more like one of political grandstanding than squashed rights. Naturally, some of my friends and readers thought I was missing the point. Said one friend:

Two mayors threatened to deny [Chick-fil-A] licenses. It’s a 1st Amendment issue. Plus, it was Dan Cathy’s personal views. Threatening the company that employs him is thuggery.

Said another friend:

FYI – The Cathy family *owns* CFA – not just an employee. The 1st Amendment only applies to gov’t reprisal for speech. Not private action.

To that, the first friend noted that the reprisals were from Boston mayor Thomas Menino, Chicago mayor Rahm Emmanuel, and NYC Council Speaker Christine Quinn.

And on the Twitter discussion went.

Is this about First Amendment rights? Sure. Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy is an American, and as such he has every right to share his beliefs without fear of government reprisal. True, the mayors of Boston and Chicago joined some other politicians in telling Chick-fil-A to get off their lawns, but to me that was nothing more than grandstanding to score a few points with voters. They can threaten to evict, but in the end we all know they can’t do that.

The mayors deserve big ugly dunce caps for their tough talk. They shouldn’t have threatened at all because they can’t follow through, nor should they be able to. It restricts freedoms.

This is also about the right of Americans to support or protest a corporation based on the political views coming from its CEOs, presidents and other leaders. That’s not thuggery; it’s freedom of expression. I don’t like people shoving their views in my face, but they still have the right to express themselves, whether they’re standing outside with protest signs or standing in line in a show of support.

Is this about corporate responsibility? Perhaps. Consumers have the right to hold companies to high standards and punish them with boycotts when they feel a line has been crossed. But while some see Cathy’s opining as an irresponsible smear against gays, others see it as a courageous stand. There is no black and white here.

To me corporate responsibility is more about the quality of the product, the treatment of the customer and honest bookkeeping, however. That’s my opinion. Feel free to disagree.

There’s another aspect worth considering, which Erin (wife of Bill and managing editor of this blog) brought up. In her words:

If the CEO is open about being against gay marriage, how much of his belief is part of the corporate culture? Are gays hired at CFA, from the highest to the lowest? Are they treated equally? Are there regular gay customers of CFA who are not treated equally? The CEO can believe what he likes and espouse it, but he can’t allow his company to discriminate based on his beliefs. Not blatantly, not subtly. And maybe that’s the real danger of a powerful person espousing his discriminatory beliefs so openly: there are those who will take it as license to discriminate accordingly, whether to please the boss or because they feel safe to act on their own beliefs.

In the final analysis, my feelings are still summed up by this comment, made by another friend on Facebook:

Dammit people, what’s wrong with you? Eat where you want to eat! Love who you want to love! Do whatever you want to do, just don’t expect everyone else to necessarily agree with you, share your views, or hate your enemies. Live life and stop worrying about who the hell ate yummy chicken today!

With that, it’s on to the next subject.

I'm Just Here for the Violence