The Laughing Wolf

Third, I make no claims to being a theologian, and plead a certain amount of ignorance. That ignorance, however, is not willful. I was raised in the Methodist church, and started bible study at a very early age. This probably was something the pastor we had at the time came to regret, as I had a tendency to ask very hard questions in all innocence, which only made it worse for him I think. A very nice and well-meaning man, he was not the brightest bulb and took to avoiding me and my questions.

The two people who had the most to do with some of my development in matters spiritual, other than my parents, were my ninth grade history teacher and a Jesuit priest. Both of these individuals put me on the path of critical thinking. The teacher knew me, and knew that I had some very romantic notions of the Catholic Church. His answer was to assign me a term paper topic that caused me to do some digging, some deep thinking, and to remove some blinders. The priest I met on a long train trip through Italy when I was 12. There is just something about the Jesuits that has the desire to teach ingrained in them. He taught that day, and it was only much later that I realized that in discussions of the countryside, history, and language that he had planted yet more seeds of critical thinking.

Over the years, my interest in and studies of matters religious and spiritual have led me to some interesting people. I have much enjoyed talks, discussions, and debates with priests, ministers, theologians, scholars, and others. A fun assignment that I will share, and highly recommend, is to read the Bible as a novel. The idea takes a little getting used to, but once you do it provides an interesting perspective.

Unlike many children in the South, I had ready access to some Jewish thought and scholarship as well, through family acquaintances. Because of the large number of food allergies I had as a child, there were many things I could not eat, such as wheat, corn, rice, rye, etc. I could eat potatoes and other foods that just happened to be Kosher, and these kind people included me and my family in their runs to Atlanta for supplies. I learned of Orthodox, Reformed, and other divisions at an early age (along with some interesting phrases in another language). It is fascinating to study Kosher requirements, and see that they block the spread of parasites and disease, and help reduce the chance of food poisoning.

Other faiths continued to fascinate me, and I was given some encouragement to explore them. Such requirements were one of the more fun parts of earning the God and Country Award in the Boy Scouts.

It was ironic that there was no Methodist version of that award and that I earned the Episcopal, as in my junior year of High School I switched to the Episcopal Church. It was a dreary story of a sky pilot who finished cementing my intense distaste for certain types who wear the cloth in any faith. The Episcopal minister was the father of some classmates, and was a wonderful person with whom to talk. I have written of him before, and he also encouraged me to continue my studies. He was most thought provoking, never belittled the fact that years earlier I had given consideration to becoming a monk, and was surprisingly patient. Yes, I did indeed have a childhood infatuation with the idea of becoming a monk (quit laughing Borzoi!).

So, I have studied a bit over the years and will note that my post of yesterday was in no way disrespectful of any aspect of Christian faith. Indeed, what some took to be disrespectful is quite fully discussed in a number of theological and scholarly sources. Sex and sensuality does play a role in scripture and in doctrine, and as such is well discussed. My paragraph of yesterday is simply an extremely concise summation of some of it. As for my comments regarding divorce and such, they are nothing compared to what is being said by ministers and priests within the faith. I believe one such was recently referenced on Winds of Change, and I know he was cited by Cardinal Puppileiu. His post was far more scathing than my simple statements of fact.

I do want to thank Dan Darling, however, for pointing out a mistake. I only had about 30 minutes in which to write that post, with the result that one thing in particular was not made clear. I listed polygamy in a series of “bad things” and failed to make clear that it is a bad thing simply in terms of U.S. law. I failed to state and explain that point properly, and am glad for the chance to correct it. The posts I write here do get short shrift, as my time has to go into paying writing, with the result that I do make mistakes in word choice, words, and spelling. I trust you will forgive those errors when they do occur.

As a matter of philosophy, I have no problem with polygamy. Nor do I have any problem with line, group, or other forms outside the norm. So long as all parties consent to the situation, and thus know what they are getting into, there is no problem with it. The key here is consent, informed consent, as I do not feel any practice that is consensual is any of anyone else’s business. It most especially is not the business of the Republic. I also find the arguments linking polygamy and incest to be a bit specious, but that again is a post for another day. For some good comments on this, look for what Jay Solo (recently married, lucky dog) says at his site and in comments at Winds of Change.

This raises a point that came up several times and in several places: other areas that need help. Members of the BDSM community face loss of children, security clearances, and jobs for their consensual practices. In a non-sexual context, so too do nudists/naturists. There are other alternative lifestyles and thoughts that face this same type of persecution, and make no mistake about it: It is persecution. It is discrimination. It is wrong.

Another important point was raised in a letter, and it does deserve some serious consideration. There are some, real extremists, who would push to force churches to perform gay marriages. How do we protect them? Case law used to provide for such, and it has been made clear over the years that Faiths may not be forced to perform acts abhorrent to them within their sanctuary. However, anti-cult laws have eroded some of those protections, and open the door for just such abuse. Current debate gives us an opportunity to consider this, and to make sure that whatever comes in the form of law ensures the sanctity and rights of all faiths.

Yes, that does mean “cults” as well. One of the oddest blessings of our Republic and the Constitution is that it allows Citizens to make stupid choices and mistakes. People can make good choices, and reap the rewards, or they can make stupid choices, and pay the price. You, as an individual, can help them if you choose, but nowhere in the Constitution is there a freedom from consequences. This echos the Bible very strongly, for the heart of that book is that unto me (and all others) is given a choice, to accept (and reap the rewards of paradise) or to reject (and spend eternity in torment).

To sum up before the half hour is up, though I am not gay I do support the right to gay marriage/unions. It in no way harms the Republic, but is in fact living up to the challenge of the Constitution. It in no way forces any Faith to recognize or countenance same, and in fact can be used to strengthen the independence of all Faiths from government interference and control. There are other positives, but that will do for now. The bell tolls, and the workday starts.

-30-

Marriage, however, truly falls into two categories: religious and civil. Religious marriages are those conducted within the dictates and regulations of a religion or similar school of philosophy. Much of this appears to have started simply as a means of calling down the blessings of the gods, god, goddess, or other on the couple so that they would have health, plenty, and plenty of offspring. Offspring were help around the farm or house, secured income, and provided for the parents in their dotage. They also helped spread the ranks of the particular religion, a fact not lost on most priests or spiritual leaders.

This, in turn, led to a number of religious edicts about marriage, and sex, for the two were interlinked by procreation. Smart leaders realized that conversion was fine, but that another way to expand a belief is to expand the population. Smaller, more aggressive religions took this to some interesting extremes over the years but the key to most of their directives was to decree that anything that did not result in pregnancy was a sin.

If one can set aside belief and bias, and examine the Bible, this is in fact the basis for deciding what was sin and what was acceptable. Anything which spilt seed except in a fertile womb was a sin: masturbation, anal intercourse in any description, sex during menstruation, etc. Anything that secured future generations was good, including the bedding of new widows, the taking of multiple wives (early Old Testament), and forcing a mate to do their duty (rape) are all okay according to scripture. Pleasure of the partners is rarely addressed, and indeed is greeted with some suspicion as it was felt it would reduce the drive for procreation. Particularly in terms of female pleasure or self-pleasure.

Nor is the Judeo-Christian religion the only one to follow this basis. One need only look at the horror of female circumcision and mutilation so as to deny pleasure by one particular religion to get the point.

The final point for today’s consideration here is that religions took to regulating and controlling marriage because it was a way to increase and expand populations and wealth. This, of course, had the effect of also expanding the religion in question, by population, wealth, and control/power.

Civil union, on the other hand, became important during the switch from hunter/gatherer to agrarian civilization. In small bands, or even large clans, pairs or more did bond, and the group in effect helped raise the children. In larger groupings, however, the latter runs into some problems because of differing beliefs, customs, and rites. Smaller groupings became common, and the idea behind a formal bonding comes down to a couple or a group stating that they are responsive for and to each other, and for and to the offspring.

This, in turn, led to more effective means to pass property between individuals and generations. This also provided for continuity that had been lacking in many areas of law/custom and differing concepts of ownership.

Having such joinings be noted by some form of civil authority came about because of a need to document, so that the smooth transfer of assets could occur. Local magistrates and leaders saw the immediate advantages to this, most especially that formal rolls (scrolls) of such records provided a neat and handy measure of the number of subjects, property owned, wealth created, etc. This led to the idea of tax rolls, mobilization rolls (the ability to pull up people to serve in military conflicts), and other instruments of benefit to the state. The concept of growth by population growth was not lost on the state either.

The idea of a marriage on marriage between the church and state appears to be a function of the Middle Ages and the spread of Christianity. The church(es) were everywhere and often kept all the records for any given community, especially rural communities. They had a reach and a power that few governments could match. So, to make things easy for the state, the idea of religious-based marriage became the official policy of all smart monarchs and governments. In this way, the church kept records for the state, that the state could use for a variety of purposes. The church(es) gained secular power in the deal as well, helping cement growing control of the governments as well as individuals.

This is the root basis of marriage in Western Civilization. The alliance between church(es) and state provided near universal insistence on marriage in the church. This also meant that Judeo-Christian regulations/morals became the defacto standard, with only minor variations between countries with different state religions.

This was true in the West until the American Revolution. The creation of the Republic was a major departure because America refused to have a state religion. Freedom of religion has many ramifications, and marriage was one of them. Because there was no central church, the States adopted measures to require that all marriages be noted in official offices, so that all the proper rolls can be kept and prepared. It also brought about two other changes, which are important to consider in the debate.

First, it brought about a larger-scale concept of civil union. With no central church, there was a need to provide for unions by people not of a church, or of a church not represented in a given location. The state moved into this role through judges, justices of the peace, etc., all of whom have been given the power to perform marriages. This further increased secular power

It also brought about more laws in regards common-law marriages. The state, in order to protect its interests, passed laws stating that couples who lived together for more than a given number of years, were considered to be married and subject to all laws and regulations (and taxations) as those legally married by church or state. In some respects, this was just a formalization of practices going back hundreds or thousands of years. In other respects, it was a radical departure because it, in effect, stated that people who did such were not responsible and would not be responsible to offspring or the state.

You have to consider the fact that up until the Middle Ages, most marriage were of a type that would today be called common-law. The people bound together, lived and died together, and never was there an official church or state wedding. Formalizing this closed a huge loophole for the state.

We must also consider the fact that a two-person, monogamous relationship has never truly been the norm. There have been group marriages, line marriages, and a number of other interesting variations. There have been two major drivers behind such (and behind marriage in general): protection and care of the children; and, protection and expansion of property.

Even within the West in and after the Middle Ages, monogamy was not and is not the norm. With arranged marriages and mergers, love was never a consideration. In some, cases, love or something like it did develop. Yet, the standard practice was for a male, particularly one who was well-to-do, to take a consort or consorts who did please the eye and heart. Men got the better end of the deal, since procreation was an important consideration. The women, as bearer of children, rarely got such liberties during child-bearing years. To do so before menopause invited ruin and death. Yet, any children from the consorts were often brought forth and made full heirs (hidden pregnancies, miracles, or just plain business as usual).

So why then does the U.S. government have such a strong interest in defining marriage?

First, there is the myth that America is a Christian nation. Yes, some (or even many) of the Founding Fathers were nominal or true Christians. Yet, they deliberately created a secular government that expressly does not endorse or enshrine any religion. This frustrates the devil out of the religious right (and not just the Christian right), because it means that they can’t control things. Such diminishes their power, and that is not a thing to be borne lightly.

Second, it is seen by many as a threat to that major drive behind marriage as a whole: the expansion of wealth. Secular and religious power depend on growing population and property.

Face it: since the dawn of recorded time same sex couples have not been able to procreate. They could adopt or take in, but until the last half of the last century, procreation was not an option. Today, only lesbian couples can have children, courtesy of artificial insemination.

If you can’t have children, you can’t grow the population base. No growth there, no growth of wealth, taxes, etc. The logic comes down to the question “How can you pay for benefits to such a couple, when they produce no wealth to society?”

This mindset is an ancient one, and it clouds any attempt to examine the situation as it currently exists. Our system of property and inheritance laws is based on the practice of centuries. Yet, the facts of life have indeed changed and mindsets and laws have yet to even begin to consider adapting.

The scientific and sexual revolution have bypassed nature as we knew it. Women now have power over themselves. They can regulate their fertility, and with it comes liberation. Liberation means an end to centuries of male domination in the West. For the fact is, as much as it pains me to agree with some of the wilder feminists, we have been a very unequal culture and the changes are going to take years, if not centuries, to play out. This threatens the hell out of a lot of men in many of the patriarchal religions. Or those who are just plain scared of women.

Couples who would have been pitied as barren just a few decades ago can now have children, through drugs and/or artificial insemination. This also means that women can have children without marriage, and without men, if they so choose.

This is also where the old mindset starts to run into some serious problems. How can a woman provide for a child without a husband? After all, for many years it has been the male who provided protection, money, and more. This is also the basis of the thought against gay marriage. If they can’t have children, how can they grow in size and wealth?

The answer is that the economy has changed as well. We are no longer an agrarian society, nor are we still an industrial society. Things have moved on, and one no longer needs teams of horses, or lots of hands to do work, in order to produce products and wealth. A smart person sitting at a computer can earn more in a month than most people in the past earned in a lifetime. The realization of that change has yet to sink in.

The old models of the creation of wealth and expansion of population no longer apply.

So, that also leaves us with the thorny issue of morality. Much of the indignation on the right deals with morality, since that is an easy hot-button emotional topic. Yet, this shows the major flaw in their campaign: morality is tied to religion. So, this begs the question of which morality and which religion will be honored? It also begs the question of which religions actually practice what they preach on this issue?

The heart of the Judeo-Christian doctrine on unions is that marriage is sacred, not to be set aside, and that they cleave only to one another. Divorce is a major no-no. Okay, so go take a look at the divorce rates. Then take a look at the studies that examine such things as adultery and sexuality. Look at the rates for sex outside of marriage and before marriage. In this respect, it is not a pretty picture. Compare this to the rates for same sex unions and activities.

The net result is that there is no evidence that same sex unions will do worse than current religious unions (and may even do better). There is no evidence that same sex marriages will cause a stagnation or decrease in the development of wealth. Modern science provides options in terms of the growth of population as a factor.

What truly matters here are two things. One, can same-sex unions provide stability/growth, and the resources needed to bring children into productive adulthood? Two, will we honor our Constitution which guarantees fundamental rights to all citizens? The latter may well be the most important question we face. We can turn our backs on it, not for the first time, and disenfranchise a chunk of our Citizens. Or, we can accept it as the sometimes uncomfortable thing it is and try our best to live up to its promise. This means holding all Citizens responsible for their actions, especially when it comes to marriage.

We already have a tradition of civil union. There is no legal or logical reason that such can’t apply to same-sex marriage. What is needed is not a defense of marriage act, but a clear separation of church and state. Let those who desire to have a same-sex union do so, either in a church that supports such, or in a civil action. Let those opposed continue to get married in the church of their choice. To do anything else violates the rights, liberties, and responsibilities of the individual, and poses contempt for the Constitution and the Republic.

-30-

First, let me be upfront and say that I think it was a mistake to make Gene Robinson a bishop of the Episcopal Church. I am a former (by my book) Episcopal and may still be on a church roll as such, though I was raised a Methodist.

There are two problems here for me, separate but related. First, he is gay and the Old Testament clearly states that this is a no no. If the Church is prepared to say that the Old Testament is renounced and that only the New Covenant remains, and that the New Covenant covers this from a doctrinal standpoint, that is one thing. If they are not, then they should not have elevated him given his orientation. Second, he is by Church Law as I understand it, an oath breaker.

Gene Robinson was, from all accounts, married and was married in the Church with the standard oaths. By leaving his wife, no matter the reason, he broke those oaths. Does this mean he can’t move up in the Church? Yes, it does, if those oaths are to mean anything. Is this harsh and unyielding? Yes, but then so is much of life.

Had he not married, and had acknowledged his homosexuality from the start, I would have very few problems with his going for Bishop. For he would have been honorable and forthright in his actions, and no solemn and holy oaths broken.

Yes, I am very aware that some people don’t figure things out for many years. Some try desperately to hide it, and there is a hell of a lot of stigma and social problems for those who are honest and forthright. Nor do I think many of them have a choice in this matter: it is my belief that there is some fairly clear and compelling scientific evidence that in some or even many cases there is a biological determination at work. I also, however, believe that some people use this as an excuse for behavior that does not have a biological basis.

Let me tell you a story about another Episcopal priest. One who took me into the Church when I left the Methodist Church in utter disgust. This was not a decision lightly made on my part, as my great-great-grandfather was the man widely regarded as the founder of the Southern Methodist Church. I left over a skypilot who was far more interested in power and money than much of anything else in my opinion. A man who refused to go visit my grandmother when she was ill because she had no money to leave the Church. This changed once he found out who my Mom was and who we were descended from, but the damage was done.

I found refuge with this priest and his family, in part because I went to the same school as his children. By this point I had already earned the God and Country award, studied a bit of theology and a good bit of history. We had some interesting theological discussions, and to my delight I found he agreed with some of my particular heresies. It was, and is, my contention that Heinlein was right: The only true sin is harming another unnecessarily.

My priest-friend thought a bit and responded with that hurting yourself was a sin. I disagreed, saying that I thought it was simply stupid, not a sin. To my surprise, he ended up agreeing with me and we went off into discussions of Heinlein, scripture, and more. I formally joined the Episcopal Church a few weeks later.

Fast forward a few years, and I am off at college. I get news from home, that there has been a problem at the Church. My priest-friend is leaving, in disgrace of sorts, and that I need to check into things. What had happened was that after many years of marriage, several good kids, and of leading various flocks, he had realized that he was a homosexual. Furthermore, he felt that he had been living a lie and that in so doing he had done wrong. He had done wrong in this, and was doing wrong in breaking his marriage vows and obtaining a divorce. These things also required that he leave the priesthood. This he accepted, and this he did.

It was not an easy time for any of his family or friends. I can’t imagine what it must have been like for them, or for him. Yet, the events of this last week have brought to the fore this episode, my thoughts, and made me examine them.

I cannot say if my priest-friend acted on his own or under pressure from the Church in his decisions. What I can say is that he either felt, or agreed, that he must leave the priesthood because of the situation and the moral obligations created. Had he not, I feel that he would have fought it in public and to the highest levels of the Church. He acted in the manner that was, to the best of my knowledge, the most honorable under the circumstances.

Many Churches preach tolerance and forgiveness, and they are right to do so. Few put it into true practice, in my opinion. This is not a case, however, where forgiveness equals automatic acceptance and manumission. It would appear that his flock has forgiven Gene Robinson his lapses, and that is well and good on a personal level. It is not good, however, for one who is to be an exemplar and held to the highest possible standards.

Where both Robinson and my priest failed, in my opinion, was in the area of self-honesty. While there are mitigating circumstances, they are not sufficient to overcome the lapses and allow elevation. Others have pointed out that were Rev. Robinson a heterosexual adulterer, there would be no question about this. He would not have been raised. Yet, simply because he is homosexual, he is raised despite breaking the same rules.

This is not equality in any sense of the word. If there is to be true equality here, then all must be held to the same standards, their word and their oaths must mean the same things, and their actions be beyond reproach.

This is not an easily accepted thing in this day and age, where there are few if any consequences for actions criminal, civil, or otherwise. I remember well another event in my hometown, where a student was caught cheating on a test. If I recall, he was pressured into it somewhat, something about a high school fraternity, but the fact was that he was caught cheating. There were consequences, including his being removed from the national honor society. He was forgiven in that he was not expelled and was given the chance to learn and grow. This did not mean, however, that he was reinstated to the society, for that was forever barred to him for his lapse in judgment. No matter what, such elevation was beyond him. As a child, I found this to be terribly unjust. But as a man, I realize the rightness of this action. There is a relevant bit of scripture referenced here, that you may want to read.

Such must, in my opinion, be the case here. The leaders of a church must be examples to one and all, and hold to the highest standards. This is why I think that much of the leadership of the Catholic Church needs to go, and it is why I do not think that Rev. Robinson should be a bishop. Forget for a moment that he is gay, and simply look at how he has dealt with himself, his family, and others, and how his word has been used. Did he, or did he not, break his oaths and Church Law. Then, decide.

This has not been an easy decision for me to reach. On the one hand, I have no problems with someone being openly homosexual and in a leadership position, if their words and actions be true. I fear that such should not be in a mainstream church for doctrinal reasons, but there is no reason that they should be barred from religion. Founding one’s own Church is perfectly legitimate, just look at the variety not only of religions in the world today, but the growing number of protestant denominations as well. Always room for one more, I think.

Then again, this is one of many reasons that I no longer call myself a Christian. While I follow many of the teachings of Christ, I find that too many of my beliefs fall in what many would consider heresy. I also strongly disagree with many Churches over doctrinal issues. My own sense of honor, and admittedly pride, mean that I can not and will not claim the title of Christian for these reasons, among others.

Being honorable, and owning up to one’s successes and imperfections mean that there are consequences. Some are tolerable, and some hurt in ways that cannot be described. That Rev. Robinson is deserving of forgiveness is indisputable, but that does not mean that he measures up to what is required for elevation.

-30-