What If?

Every now and then I dip my toes in the poetry well. This was something I wrote tonight as a performance piece for the open mic slam I'm preparing for. I have written poetry for 25 years. As you might imagine, the tone and subject matter has changed a bit throughout this period. However, I tended to only write when I was angry, hurt, depressed, etc. Lately my life has been so wonderful that I haven't written a thing - a blessing, yes, but also tough for me as that's one of my biggest stress releases.

But it hit me all of a sudden this evening that I have the perfect thing to still be angry about, and it fits right in with all the other mediums in which I profess my opinions and support - I'm talking about the fight for LGBT equality, of course. If I can use this new medium as a way to reach others through social media, and especially if given the chance to perform one of my pieces to a public audience at a slam, maybe this will reach a whole different demographic than I'm used to.

So. I decided to go ahead and share what I just wrote with all of you, and get your input on it. Keep in mind, this was written specifically in a performance style, so it does lose something in just reading it. But I thought I'd share it anyway, and see what you all think.

Please leave a comment once you've read this over. (It will really help me out in the future.)

What If?

You look at me

Your eyes chewing on my details

As you prepare to spit out an undigested, undesired opinion

I can see you count them off…

‘1, 2, 3

Same as me’

Minivan

Extra curves

Kid hanging off each arm

Just another

Suburban mother

Nothing to look at

Nothing to bother

Yourself

With.

But…

What if you knew?

What if you could see down to my truth

My insides

My deepest, darkest depths

The things I have done

The bodies I have ravished

The hearts I have left panting

And writhing

In abject agony at my departure?

What if you could open my doors

Expose my skeletons

And come to know them by name?

Then you would see that I am nothing

Like I seem

I am not

Some straight man’s absolution

I am not

Some straight man’s whore

I am not

Some straight man’s plaything

Secret fling

Wedding ring

Because…

I am not

Straight.

See, where other women have

A ‘he’ in their lives

I, instead, have a ‘she’

A ‘she’ that is my love

A ‘she’ that is my life

My wife

My everything

So what if

You knew this truth?

Would I be worth the bother then?

Or would I simply BE a bother

A stark reminder

In your daily life of privilege?

Your rights trump my rights

Then

Your dreams are the only ones that count

Then

Your love is God-breathed and mine is a sin

Then

But wait…

Only moments ago I was part of your crowd

Another mother

Not something other

Now everything is changed

In your head

Yet I’m still a suburban mother

Still just a regular gal

Nothing is different about me

From then ‘til now

Except you

So what if

You made a change

What if

You decided my ‘she’

Instead of a ‘he’

Was irrelevant

To my ‘me’

What would change then

If?

© Jeni Cantrell 2013

I'm Baaaa-ack! And I brought Pat Robertson with me.

Good grief. Uncle Patty is at it again...only this time we've been thrown in the pool with murderers, rapists, and thieves. 

Seriously? 

Let's see here...people who kill others, people who force themselves sexually on others, people who steal from others, and people who are in love and simply want the right to live their lives with the same respect and regard as is given to others. 

Do any of you remember the game on Sesame Street - One of These Things is Not Like the Other? Take a minute and read the above paragraph again, and let me know if you can find the thing that is not like the others. Go ahead. I'll wait...

What's that you say? You're already done? And so quickly, too! Surprising, given that Mr. Robertson seems to think they're all so similar.  

The irony in his little pitch would be hilarious if not for the fact that he means every word. At one point, he even encourages his viewers to stand up for 'freedom' against those who might 'take away their right to free speech'. And all the while, it is he and his cronies who are fighting against freedom for any who think differently than they. Amazing that someone could build such an enormous, multi-million dollar empire and not be intelligent enough to recognize the double standard under which he operates.

Listen, you can think whatever you want about me and my 'kind' on your own time and in your own home. Knock yourself out. But once you put out a public statement like the one put forth by the ESPN contributor whom Pat is referencing, you stand to reap the societal consequences of such hateful and bigoted speech. You want to despise all illegal immigrants? Sit around the dinner table and talk about how the wetbacks are completely screwing up our country and we oughta box 'em all up and ship 'em back? Fine. Go ahead. You absolutely have that right. But you want to go on television or radio and say those things? You're gonna get called out - and rightly so. 

See, the real issue here is that our dear Mr. Robertson and his ilk continue to believe that sexual orientation is 'fixable'. Yes, human sexuality can be and often is fluid (see: Kinsey Scale), but the ever mounting pile of scientific evidence (and the personal statements and stories of untold amounts of LGBT individuals) all point to what we who live this life have known all along...you are who you are. And nothing can change that. In fact, there are numerous studies that have shown how dangerous reparative therapy (a.k.a 'conversion therapy' or 'pray the gay away') actually is. These, of course, are from rather reliable sources - such as a little group known as the American Psychological Association. And then there's this article by Dr. Doug Haldeman, which has the best line I've ever read regarding the reason some LGBT people actually seek out reparative therapy, "Many of these individuals are vulnerable to the idea of repairing in themselves what is actually society's problem: a history of rejection and discrimination based upon socially instituted homophobia." 

Our sexual orientation is no more fixable or changeable than yours, Pat. We were made to be exactly who we are, and our existence is not harmful to any but those who are afraid of what they don't understand. You claim that the 'power of God' can change anything, and that may well be true. But the point to remember here is that in this instance, there is nothing that needs to be changed, so your argument is invalid.

It will only be when people such as this man either fall away naturally, open up and allow themselves be educated, or care enough to search out the answers on their own that the hate speech will stop. Because make no mistake - that's exactly what it is...language full of fear and judgement and hatred and assumption. But we will win out in the end, because our weapons in this fight are love and community and steadfast compassion; and when we open up the floodgates to let that light up our way, there is no hate that can stand against it for long. 

So get out there, be brave, and shine.

When do we get to call B.S., exactly?

I came across an article today that astounded me. It's titled, 

"What gay rights activists don't want you to read: Vital testimony from a man raised by two moms"

Intrigued, I decided to read it, because hey - if there's some big secret I'm trying to keep from people as a gay activist, I really need to know what it is! 

What was written had me alternately laughing and cursing at my computer screen. It is an absolutely perfect example of how desperate the conservative right is to gather damaging information on LGBT households - parents, in particular - and how far they will bend or fast they will spin the truth in an effort to create that info. 

Now, the title of this article (and I use that term extremely loosely) would lead one to believe the man quoted and referenced in this piece - Mr. Robert Lopez - would have actually been raised by two moms, yes? I mean, this isn't neuroscience here..."testimony from a man raised by two moms" should indeed indicate he was actually raised by two moms, right? 

Wrong.

You see, that isn't actually the case. Upon actually reading this piece, I quickly realized that the man was raised alone by his mother, who yes - happened to be a lesbian, and who yes - also happened to have a girlfriend. How could I dare come to this conclusion, you ask? I mean it states right there in the title he was raised by wild, heathens lesbians, doesn't it? 

The trick here is getting past the inflammatory rhetoric that is passed off as journalism and noticing the facts. Take, for instance, this lovely paragraph, told from the viewpoint of Mr. Lopez:

"After my mother's partner's children had left for college, she moved into our house in town. I lived with both of them for the brief time before my mother died at the age of 53. I was 19. In other words, I was the only child who experienced life under "gay parenting" as that term is understood today."

Okay, whoa whoa whoa...back it up a minute. Did he just say his mother's partner moved in when he was 19? As in 19 years old? As in GROWN and at an age where the whole 'formative years' thing is just a faint memory in the rearview? 

Why yes, I believe he did. 

And yet he claims to have suffered from his experience of being raised under "gay parenting", and to have been afflicted by numerous ill effects from that 'raising'.  

Is anyone else smelling this? Am I the only one? How can this not be a story on The Onion or some other satire site?

Has it really come to this...that the Right is truly this desperate in the face of all the scientific evidence that has proven time and again that LGBT households are really no different, and certainly not damaging?

Honestly, to trot out a story about a man who was supposedly 'raised' by his mother and her partner, only to state this 'raising' took place beginning at the age of 19, and then for only a few years until his mother's death, and try to somehow use it to prove the damage imparted by being raised in a gay household? That's a stretch even for the conservative media.

The article goes on to explain, in Mr. Lopez's words, how incredibly difficult his life was, having no male role models and no one to explain gender-norms to him at all. How he didn't know when or how to say the right thing at the right time in social situations, due to his lack of knowledge regarding "gender cues most of us take for granted"; and how he ended up in the "gay underworld" after college because of his 'raising'. 

Seriously? Did he live in a bubble all those years when he was living alone with his mom? No uncles, no male friends, no grandparents...no one who was male in his life at all? How very interesting. And how exactly does this speak to being raised by a committed, monogamous, same-sex couple who live under one roof as a family again? That's right - it doesn't. 

This seems more indicative of life with a single mother and the effects that might have on a boy growing up, but again - there's no need to concern ourselves with the facts, folks. These gays are out of hand, and here's just the guy to prove it!

One extremely interesting tidbit came from his explanation of his decision to marry a woman (stated that way in the article by him, thus indicating he might just be a big ol' gay, himself). He remarks that his goal was to "concern myself first and foremost with my children's needs, not my sexual desires." 

Well, that's admirable. I mean, as long as you're not a closet case, who is ruining not only your own life but that of your wife who thinks she married a straight man, and those of your children who are going to be devastated that you lied to them all these years when you do finally come out at the age of 50-something. Because then it's not admirable, it's loathsome and selfish.

So at what point do we get to refute mess like this and bring it to the attention of those who are promoting what it supposedly "proves"? And would it really make a difference if we did? Is the right-wing so far gone that it no longer cares about the truth behind its reporting? 

The existence of some things, like Fox News, would suggest the answer is 'yes'. But I have to wonder - and I have to hope - that somewhere, someone will fact-check their way into the conservative regime, and will show the people there that not only are they operating on fiction, but they are willfully ignoring the fact. That just adds up to sadism, if you ask me. 

Knowing something is wrong and factually incorrect, but promoting it anyway because it supports what you've been beating your head against the wall to prove, no matter how many people it hurts or how many young people it drives to suicide...that, to me, is the greater danger. 

This movement spends so much time and energy and money and resources to beat down a group of people who have never done a thing to it besides have the audacity to believe something it does not. And the people behind this movement willingly give these things to a cause that is unfounded and disproven and harmful, when that time, energy, money, and resources could be spent saving the lives of the homeless or hungry.

But hey - at least they're not gay, right? And to them, that seems to be all that matters.

My Letter to Brian Brown (of NOM)

As I'm sure the vast majority of you are aware by now, there was a ground-breaking move made by Dan Savage. No, this time he behaved himself - quite well, in fact. He invited Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage (a misnomer, but I digress...) to come to his home, eat dinner with his family, and have an open, moderated debate on marriage equality. I know, right?

It's an hour long, but so very, very worth the time. Take a look here.

Now, I have come against Dan Savage's methods on this blog before, and I stand by my words. But I have to say that during this debate he is once again the Dan Savage I am so proud of...the one that has done so much good for our community by engaging in thoughtful, meaningful, intelligent, informed, and well-researched and referenced conversation. 

And for his part, I also have to commend Mr. Brown on his composure during the debate. It does run contrary to what I have seen of him via other media links, but we all have our bad days, I suppose. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Until I saw this.

In case you don't feel like following a link, essentially Mr. Brown got on NOM's website (and on his high horse) to declare his "victory" in the "valley of the beast". Really? Gone was the civility...replaced by fabricated sadness that he just couldn't lead Savage to the truth, and inflammatory talking points that attempted to make his followers believe what he believed - that Savage was just flat out wrong. Never mind that he actually gave any proof that Dan was wrong. He shouldn't have to, you know? Because he just was. 

I was so blown away by his claim to apparent victory, and by the responses given in the comments, that I could not help myself. I had to add one. I know, I know...deaf ears and all of that. But I could not click that 'back' button without speaking my mind. I know that comes as a horrible shock to all of you.

Below is the text of my comment...all lengthy and verbose, as is my personal style. But I really hope that maybe just one person on that site will read it, and hear what it is I am trying to say. I did my best to not be ugly, and for the most part I think I succeeded. 

Let me know what you think in the comments - should I have been harsher? Nicer? Just left it alone? (Pshh. C'mon guys...you know I can't leave things alone!)

________________________________________

Well, I must say...there is certainly one aspect of this post that I appreciate. And that is the fact that you say we are not the poor little gay people deserving of pity due to being a minority. Because we are not. Deserving of pity, that is. We're deserving of rights. And before the vast majority of you jump the gun and start mentally writing out your insulted retort to this, please take the time to read what I have to say. The only way to have a fair debate is to actually give time and consideration to what the other side has to say. I read this article in its entirety, twice, and watched the debate as well. 

All this double-talk and circular arguments that lead to the basic assumption we are simply deviants who need to be pitied amounts to nothing more than the southern equivalent of "bless their hearts". You know, how we can get away with saying something horrible about someone down here, as long as we follow it with "bless her heart"? - i.e., "She looks positively obese in that dress, bless her sweet heart!"

Unfortunately, this is the elitist attitude that is all too often displayed by you, Mr. Brown, and many of your cohorts/followers. 'Well, I tried to tell them, but they just won't listen! They seem completely immune to the truth, and bent on remaining deviant...bless their hearts!'

What is somehow just not getting through to you is that while you absolutely have the right to believe as you wish, and you absolutely have the right to speak about and promote those beliefs, you absolutely do not have the right to seek change or ban change to civil legislation on religious grounds. Marriage is a civil institution. Religious marriage is a religious institution. There is most certainly crossover - even in the gay community - but it is not mandated. Pagans are entitled to civil marriage. Atheists are entitled to civil marriage. Divorcees are entitled to civil marriage. Muslims, Taoists, Hindus...everyone is entitled to civil marriage under the law...unless you happen to have the same plumbing. 

It is a fundamental flaw that we are seeking to repair.

I do not need nor desire your approval of my relationship or my family, just as you do not need or desire my approval of yours. That is what is so wonderful about this country - it's not necessary that one or the other of us be 'right' on the subject. 

But what you and so many others seem to dance around every time is that this country is not a theocracy - not by a long shot. In fact, it was founded on principles that run directly contrary to theocracy. Therefore, civil legislation must be decided on civil merits, not religious ideology. 

So many on the right are whipped up about the possibility of the nation falling under Sharia Law... Have you even stopped to think that Dominionism or a Christian theocracy is every bit as frightening to some people? Yes, I know you believe your way is the only way, and that's just fine. But there are millions of others who believe the same thing - about their version of the Christian religion or their non-Christian religion. 

What if a large, well-funded majority of them stood up and suddenly started making claims that everyone should be subject to the tenets of their faith, even in a country that is founded on the inherent right to religious freedom? Take Sharia Law just as an example...there are only the tiniest of echos of any kind of possibility that it could ever become a widespread situation, and how crazy has the world gone over just that? Do you think women would just sit by and let it happen? Or millions of others? Without protest? No. Because what is right for some is not right for all, and that goes for all of us. Period.

So please do not continue equating your religious beliefs and therefore your basis for the definition of marriage with actual civil rights. While there are certainly places the Venn diagram of life shows overlap, it does not - in any fashion - show dominion. 

Learn to see outside of yourself. Not go into "the valley of the beast" and consider yourself a hero...truly see outside of yourself. 

Honestly take a good look inside, and find the courage to say, "No, I do not agree with your life and who you are or claim to be, and I do not support your marriage. But my opinion is not law, and you have the same rights to the over 1130 federal benefits and protections that legal civil marriage has to offer." It's not so much to ask, really. It's what we do every day with others who do not hold our same faith or morals or ethics in whatever regard. This is no different, except where you make it so.

Call us what you wish...call us pitiable, or wrong, or lost. 

That is absolutely your right. 

But do not stand in the way of our civil rights based on your personal interpretation of one of hundreds of religions (or the absence thereof) that are allowed and practiced in this great nation. 

Because that, Mr. Brown, is not.

Dear Pat Robertson...

Just so you are aware - I do not now, nor shall I ever have any plans to 'shut my mouth' with regard to LGBT equality, as you have so eloquently requested. And while I cannot speak for each individual involved in the activist community at large, my educated guess would be that they, too, will refuse your rather obnoxious demand. 
_____________________________

For those of you who are not familiar with his request, here is a link to the story. Essentially, our good buddy Pat got so upset about advocates at several universities petitioning to oust Chic-fil-A from their campus, that he called upon the LGBT demonstrators/population to either "bring forth a baby from that part of the anatomy they concentrate on", or "shut their mouths". 

I'll admit, I'm a tad confused. I was unaware that babies were born to any individual out of their heart. I mean - that is the part of the anatomy we focus the most on, after all...oh, wait. I forgot - Mr. Robertson and his ilk only think of the actual s-e-x act when they think of us and our relationships. My mistake. 

Okay then, that makes sense...except...wait a minute. I am a lesbian, and have actually brought forth two babies (albeit out the window instead of the door, since I had to have c-sections). So...does that mean I'm supposed to be concentrating on my stomach? And what about the cis women* who are lesbians or bisexuals, and have had vaginal deliveries? Are they exempt? Or infertile couples? Older couples? Should hetero- and homosexual cis men* just be tossed out altogether since they physically cannot conceive and 'bring forth' children at all? And don't even get me started on what to do with trans men* who have had vaginal deliveries - I'm pretty sure that would make Patty's head explode.

I'm so lost. I think essentially what he was trying to say was unless you can poop a baby, you should shut your mouth. Which I agree would be a really cool trick, but I'm also quite doubtful that good ol' Pat could pull that off, himself. Which means he should shut his mouth. Now there's a sentiment I can wholeheartedly agree with.

Of course, he also had to pull out the tired and entirely irrelevant Leviticus passage, claiming that due to abortion and gay rights, the world is going to "vomit out its inhabitants". 

Short disclaimer: Just so we're clear - I am unapologetically pro-life. (I know, how very un-liberal of me). My stand has very little to do with religion and very much to do with scientific data, and it's just something about me you're going to have to deal with. Like my horrid housecleaning skills, or the fact that I have to have the toilet paper coming off the roll in one certain direction (from the top) or it ruins my whole day. Just part of the package.

Moving on..

So Patty-boy invoked the seemingly damning passage from Leviticus again - which I'm not quite sure has anything to do with pooping babies, incidentally - and tells the viewers,

"it is an abomination for a man to lie with a man as with a woman. It’s what it says. That is the moral law that God set forth and now we’ve got people at a university petitioning because somebody said I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman."

Well no, Mr. Robertson, on many counts. 

One, while I agree that the text of that particular passage does indeed say those words, it also says just a few lines down that it is an "abomination" to eat shellfish and wear fabric made of mixed linen. So the next time you sit down to that shrimp cocktail in your poly/rayon blend suit, make sure you are aware of the consequences. We'll save you a seat on the bus.

Two, should you actually apply the knowledge you should have about your own religion, that 'moral law' you speak of no longer applies, as Jesus came to abolish the law in the New Testament. Which is why no one is going around slapping crawfish out of people's hands or stripping them of their horribly sinful mixed-linen clothing. 

And three, the people at the university are not petitioning because someone said they believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. People can say that all day - that's their right. What they are petitioning was allowing a secular company on their campus that is taking secular, public monies and funneling them into various hate groups - one of which even supported the law to kill gays in Uganda - on the basis of personal religious beliefs. Bit of a difference, that. 

In reality, Dan Cathy did us a bit of a favor...we deserve to know where our fabulous gay dollars are going, and we retain the right to refuse to contribute to the very causes that seek to keep us as second-class citizens. And that's just what these activists were protesting and petitioning for - to keep that kind of company away from their school, and away from the people that either do not know or willfully ignore the impact their money is having when they buy those waffle fries. 

So frankly, my dear Patrickins, you lack the critical support data and the basic understanding of the topic necessary to give your little demand any power whatsoever.

Which is why I will restate my earlier position:

I will not now, nor at any time in the future 'shut my mouth', 'keep quiet', 'calm down', or any other euphemism for 'sitting down and taking it' you can come up with. 

I will continue to speak out. I will continue to educate. And I will continue to fight until we are granted the same rights, the same privileges, the same respect as our heterosexual peers. And I assure you, Mr. Robertson - neither you nor anyone else has what it takes to stop me.

But hey, if you happen to poop a baby anytime soon, let me know. I'll bring you a chicken sandwich.

________________________________________

If you're unfamiliar with the terms I used in this blog, here is a little lesson:

*cis men: individuals whose biological sex is "male" and who experiences their gender and/or identifies as "male"

*cis women: individuals whose biological sex is "female" and who experiences their gender and/or identifies as "female" 

*trans man: an individual who was assigned a "female" sex at birth, but experiences their gender and/or identifies as "male" 

Ride, Sally Ride

I had another blog in the works before hearing about the death of a true inspiration. Not only does Sally Ride deserve to have her own blog post, the issues surrounding her life - and ultimately her death - bring the struggle of LGBT couples everywhere into sharp relief. So my plans have changed, and I will be writing this before finishing the promised blogs on Gay Rights vs. Religion and the Gay Parenting and Junk Science posts.


Sally Ride was an inspiration to an entire generation of girls. I happened to be in that generation. If for some reason you live under a rock, Ride was the first American woman in space. Up until that point, the U.S. space program was of the opinion that women were not fit for space travel - a belief they hung on the notion that a woman's menstrual cycle would make her a bad candidate. I think they might have just been thinking of themselves, though, if you think about it...a bunch of men, in a claustrophobically small space, trapped with no way out, and a woman on her period. Noooo...nothing could go wrong there!


Thankfully, the misogynistic attitudes abated and Ride was selected to go up. Not only was she the first female astronaut, but she was also the youngest astronaut in space, a prominent physicist, and held a Bachelors in English and a Ph.D. in Physics. Oh, and she was gay.


Tam O'Shaughnessy became Ride's partner in 1985, and they were together until Sally's recent death. If you're bad at math like me, I'll help you out - that's 27 years. In our current age of 55-hour marriages and a 60% divorce rate, any couple who sticks it out through 27 years is to be applauded. And maybe they were, in their circles. But the benefits of such a long partnership are quite different in Tam and Sally's case than they would be for a legally married heterosexual couple, and that is what I really want to address here.


Normally, if a wife or husband in a hetero marriage passes away, their remaining spouse is awarded certain benefits. These can range from Social Security to pensions, to other death benefits, and they are among the 1138 rights that are denied - even to legally married same-sex couples - the LGBT population at large by the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. 


However, because this over-two-decades-long relationship was between two people of the same sex, Ride's widow (because that's what she is), gets nothing. Nada. Zip. This woman, with whom Sally made a life, owned a business with, kept a home with, has been treated upon her partner's death as if she were some acquaintance or "friend". And oh, how I hate that word when it comes to our relationships. 


Ride has long been lauded as an American Hero, as an inspiration to young girls everywhere that they can be just as smart and successful as any boy. I can remember being a young girl and hearing about her launch on the Challenger. I always loved space and all topics related to space (still do), but the thought that even a girl could go there was so amazing to me. It really helped me see that I could walk the same path as any guy could, which for a girl in the South is a huge accomplishment.


And yet, this woman - who was so very important and integral to the self-esteem and educational choices of young women, and who broke through the 'good ol' boys' club - has been permanently and irrevocably rendered "less-than" by the very government and people she served. It is a sick irony, and it should never have to happen.


Because Sally loved Tam, and not Tim (or Walt, or Harry), she was never able to stand in front of friends and family and celebrate a legal union between them, nor was she able to leave a financial legacy behind that is honestly owed to her partner. They worked together as a team, and should be honored as a couple. But they are not, and it makes me ill.


This was made even worse, in my opinion, by the tweet posted by Mitt Romney. It went a little something like this:

"Today, America lost one of its greatest pioneers. The first American woman in space, Sally Ride inspired millions of Americans with her determination to break the mold of her time. She was a profile in courage, and while she will be missed, her accomplishments will never be forgotten."

Break the mold, she did, and not just in the space program. And her accomplishments will never be forgotten, but neither will any portion of the benefits from those accomplishments be awarded to her spouse. 


How Romney can stomach writing these words while simultaneously vowing to do away with almost every inch of headway we have made politically for LGBT individuals and couples just floors me. His comment should have been, 'She was a great pioneer, a profile in courage...but sorry...she has to sit at the back of the bus. Not my rules - I'm just doing what any Christian man who knows his Scripture, hides his money, and sells out to the highest bidder would do. Oh, and since she was gay, it's good that she had courage because she's now going to burn in hell. The Bible says so.' It's beyond perverse.


My heart goes out to Tam in this time - not only for what must be an excruciating loss of her partner of so many, many years - but also because the government that her partner served has dismissed her with a flick of its hand, turning a blind eye to the obvious relationship that existed between the two for longer than the majority of hetero marriages. Hiding behind an outdated (and no longer legally defensible) law, they willingly turned their backs on the wife of an American Hero.


How very unheroic.

"Ain't No Homos Gonna Get Into Heaven"

Hello all! Sorry for the major break, but we were on vacation, and now it's summer so my precious babies are here all...day...long...with me, which makes it kind of tough to write. ;o) I have also officially started the last two years of my Bachelor's program, so things have been kinda crazy around here. I missed this though - having an outlet for my outrage, so to speak. And do we have a humdinger today...
_____________________________________________


I have been struggling with an incident that was reported on May 30th of this year. I did my usual thing of posting the video on facebook and garnering as many results from educating the public about this heinous act as possible. But then something strange happened... See, many (ok, most) of the things I get upset about from an activist point of view I can eventually let go of rather easily - I get mad, I take what action I can, and then I move on. 


If I continued to let every single incidence boil and fester within me, I would be a walking ball of dirty, hairy, monster seethe. And as I have an incredible wife and two beautiful children to take care of, that just wouldn't do. So I let them go after I've done what I could (the incidences, not the wife and kids).


But there's one that I just cannot shake. It still haunts me every day. Maybe it's because I'm a mother and the very thought of filling a child's head with this kind of ignorant vitriol makes me physically ill. 


There is a video that has been circulating for almost a month now, of two sweet little boys on stage at a church service, singing their little hearts out. The name of the hymn, you ask? Oh, this was no hymn. The title of this catchy little ditty is "Ain't No Homos Gonna Get Into Heaven". Yup, that's right - the adults at the Apostolic Truth Tabernacle in Greensburg, IN, took it upon themselves to not only write these foul words for the children's innocent mouths to spew, but also gave them a raucous standing ovation for performing it.


(Click here to see for yourselves, but I warn you - it's deeply disturbing. Also, the link to the full story is here.)


I cannot seem to get that sweet baby's voice out of my head, and I cannot help but think this has to qualify as some sort of child abuse. Teaching children such blatant discrimination and hatred is sick. It's just sick.


Regardless, it has haunted me for almost a month now, and still my inner activist is awake and bubbling over. So I finally decided to send the pastor himself (who is now in hiding) a little message via the church's website. 


I did not cuss. I did not spit ugly things at him. There really is no place for that if you want to get someone's attention and get them to actually listen and consider your points as valid arguments, as I believe I have covered before in my Dan Savage post. 


I simply stated to this pastor in the best terms I could why his actions and those of his church are unacceptable, not to mention directly contrary to the God they claim to serve. 


(If you feel moved to leave a message as well, the direct link to the website is here.)


Basically I centered my message around two key points:


1) I don't seem to recall at any point in the Bible that Jesus got up on stage and sang, "Ain't no tax collectors gonna get into heaven!". In fact, I am certain He did not. What He did instead is to sit and commune with them...to break bread with them...to treat them as human beings - not the punch line in some song. I explained to this pastor that as disappointed as I am in him as a mother and a lesbian, I am more than positive Jesus would be even more so. These are not His ways. These are the divisive and self-serving ways of man. Ever heard of the Pharisees? Moving on...


2) What if a gay man came across the home page of this church, and actually believed the words written there?  

"...our doors are open to you regardless of your background or where you are on your spiritual journey"..."

"We are striving to be the kind of church described in the Bible...where there's...compassionate care for those in need."

"You'll find that this is a place where you really matter - because you matter to God.

What if he took these words to heart and put down that razor or that gun he was about to kill himself with, and thought maybe - just maybe - there are people who will accept me and see me as a human being deserving of respect - help me to understand that God still loves me even if I feel no one else does?

And what if this young gay man happened to attend a church service, and it just happened to be the one where the entire congregation gave a standing ovation to these poor children unwittingly placed front and center at their horror show of hatred?

Do you think that man would stay? Do you think he would wait around for someone to come by and say that they "hate the sin, not the sinner", and that he was welcome there? Even if there were people to say that (and by the congregation's reaction to the song, I do not believe there would be), that gay man would not be there to hear it. He would be long gone, out the door, most likely finally and irrevocably broken. And I very much doubt he would survive the day.


I wrote to the pastor that he never knows who is watching him. Never knows who is trying to find a place to fit in, and who is on the brink of completely giving up and giving over to death in order to try and find some semblance of peace. These kinds of actions and blatant disrespect of human lives are what cause the litany of sorrow for the LGBT community...murder, suicide, beatings, bullying, discrimination, false information...the whole gamut.


But listen, the plain truth is that we can fight all we want for legal recognition as full citizens under the law. And we can fight for marriage equality, and non-discrimination clauses, and everything under the sun to ensure our lives are equal to and as privileged as our straight peers. But that's only law. It's not love. 


You cannot legislate someone's heart. You cannot vote in and approve a measure that is going to change their idea of what is and what is not acceptable within our society. It has been many, many years since separatism was deemed illegal, and yet the African-American community still suffers discrimination at the hands of the whites. Now it's just dressed up in a prettier package, is all.


To truly make a difference, and to truly change what needs to be changed so that we can all finally be seen as true equals - not under the law, but under the love we should all have for our fellow men and women who share life's journey with us - there has to be education. Educating the public, getting the right and true and correct information out there, and showing the people who fear us and our 'agenda' that our lives are every bit as boring and normal as theirs is the only way we're going to get the results we need to each live our lives in peace.


I'm going to say that again - educating the public about homosexuality in all its forms is the only way we will ever change what needs to be changed. 


Voting is good. Yes, please vote (if you don't, you forfeit your right to bitch, by the way). Keep up with politics - I know it's incredibly boring to some of you, and I understand that. Five minutes of my nightly MSNBC check-in and my wife is drooling and rocking herself on the couch. But it's important, and it does affect your daily lives in ways you can never imagine. So watch. Read. Discuss. Engage. Fill your mind with knowledge and facts and rebuttal points so that when someone comes against you for your views (and someone will, I assure you) you will have a fully stocked arsenal from which to draw, and you might just change a mind if you do it the right way.


And that is the last thing I want to touch on for this post:  

We must engage the other side in conversation, not competition. 

There is no place for a pissing contest when it comes to civil rights. When that happens, situations simply escalate out of control and both parties walk off more angry and sure that they have all the answers than when they walked in. 

To unlock this puzzle, and to find a middle ground there has to be dialog. No screaming, no name-calling, no cursing, no slurs. Just people, discussing a topic, and listening to and acknowledging the other side's views. 

What we have to remember is that as strongly as we feel about our beliefs on a topic, the other side feels just as strongly about theirs. So if we want to change their beliefs, we have to first meet them where they are, and then respect them enough to lead them into the light of truth instead of trying to shove them over to our side and tying them down.

Engage people. Talk to people. Use the opportunity of an awkward moment when someone first learns you are LGBT as an educational experience. My go-to phrase has been, "Yes, I am. And I am proud of my family. I know there's a lot of misconceptions out there, so if you ever have any questions - any questions at all - I'm an open book, and I'd be glad to answer them for you."

It is amazing what this approach does. First, you are not backing down from the accusation or treating your orientation as something that needs to be apologized for. And secondly, you are offering them a free tour of gay culture and gay life, because you have opened the floor up for questions. I cannot count the number of people I have said this to, and in the subsequent hours, days, or weeks, they finally come to me and begin to appease their curiosity. And what happens when that time comes is that they begin to understand that we are not different from them at all - the only true difference is the plumbing of our partners!

When we can make an open and honest and respectful world, things like these precious children being made to sing such hateful things and enjoying it because everyone is acting like they're so very proud will be a thing of the past. 

Once people's hearts are open, there is no turning back. Or should I say "ain't"?