Feed my lambs

I totally missed "Blogging for LBGT Families" Day yesterday. For that I sincerely apologize.

I would have loved to have written a post about how I think we're all in LBGT families, whether we realize it yet or not. Lots of you know that securing equal rights and a true spirit of inclusion for LBGT people in the Lutheran Church is one of my many agenda (I'd really like LBGT people to be so normal and included as to be unworthy of special comment in all Christian and other faithful communities, but you've got to start with your own people). I've taken it on for two reasons. The first is practical: I have children. My duty to them is to protect and nurture them, and to provide them with safe places to be. I can't bring them to places where they won't be safe, whether they turn out to be straight golfing corporate executives, gay musician soccer dads, leather-clad queer anarchists, or anything else. So the only option for me is to work to make my church (both my local congregation and the ELCA) a place that's safe and welcoming for people of all sorts of states and situations.

The second, more important reason I'm such a loudmouth about welcoming LBGT people into all areas of church and civil life is that Jesus asks us to. The Gospel specifically mandates us to welcome those who are not like us as well as those who are. In particular, we are to welcome those who society (including Bible-reading churchgoers) deems "less than." We are to embrace those who we are told are "suspect." Read a kick-ass lesson on this here. Now, I don't personally consider the majority of the LBGT people I know "suspect," but society still does. It's up to Christians and the church to act as Christ wants us to by welcoming LBGT people, whether they're single or partnered, parents or childless.

If you reject the idea that LBGT people deserve civil rights and family protection, go back and read your Bible. (And no, the King James Version does not count as a good translation of the Bible. It never has.) Not the Old Testament (which Jesus wiped away, remember?). Reread the Gospels. It's right there, laid out in every story, every parable, every big and small thing Jesus said.

And, FWIW, I'm in favor of civil marriage for none; civil rights, benefits, and protections for all; and religious marriage for anyone who wants it.

Comments

[Bethany]

Moxie -- you never fail to amaze me. I get something out of your blog every time I read it.

M and I, up until last year, belonged to our local United Church of Christ church (ucc.org). The UCC's slogan is "You're Welcome Here" and their doors are open to everyone. I loved my church..LOVED it, and I loved the open and inviting atomosphere and knowing that anyone who walked through those doors would be welcomed equally.

Our individual church had some problems (that I won't go into) and after a long decision making problem, we left. It was like leaving a good friend and it's been really difficult.

M's family is a multi-generation Lutheran family and he really wants to go back to the Lutheran church. I've been dragging my feet exactly for the reasons you've posted. I don't want to raise my girls in an ultra-conservative atmosphere. I want them to see church as a haven and understand that we are all the same in God's eyes.

But you turned my head a little today. Rather than fight my husband, maybe what I should be doing is working for change within the church itself. And maybe that, in itself, would be a large lesson to my children.

You gave me food for thought while I do my dishes this morning. Thank you.

[Elizabeth]

Amen. (Well, Jesus didn't wipe away the Old Testament for me, so that's a different issue, but I'm with you on the rest of it.)

When you have time, I'd love to hear more on the last paragraph. In particular, how to achieve the "civil rights, benefits and protections for all" without having legal marriages. In theory, I agree with the no civil marriages idea, but in practice, I think it would harm the most vulnerable. (See also Shannon's post of yesterday.)

[AmyinMotown]

Moxie, you've put into words why I feel so strongly about fighting ANY kind of discrimination within my church. In my particular Catholic community, accepting and loving everyone, not just those we feel comfortable with, is a very large part of how we operate as a parish. And I also feel like you do, that my church isn't going to change the (many many) things it must if every liberal Catholic leaves.

Also, damn straight we're all in LGTB families whether we know about it or not. My oldest friend came out at 33--and I mean SHE'D had no real idea until she found herself head over heels for a woman. It's made me a lot more aware of how I use language, to the point my husband finally said "Could you stop with the 'Maggie's eventual partner, man or woman' stuff and can we just take it as given we don't care is she's gay?"

One thing I am unclear on: "civil marriage for none"? Like, no civil marriage for any couple straight or gay? Huh.

[Cricket]

After preaching all that tolerance, why do you follow it with this?

<>

[Cricket]

I'll try it again with different quotation marks:

"And, FWIW, I'm in favor of civil marriage for none"

All marriages should be in a church? Even for the non-believer risking hypocrisy?

[MotherPie]

Ummmm.....what is an LBGT family?
Jes' askin'...

[Susie]

Amen.

A side note...the last week, my daughter's preschool teacher told me the following story:

My daughter and a few other kids were playing house. Two girls wanted to be the mommy, so my daughter's idea was they should both be the mom. The other kids were all up in arms and told her there can't be two moms in the same family. My daughter was completely incredulous and went on to tell them that was the craziest thing she'd ever heard; of course they could both be the mommy -- all they had to do was give the baby lots of kisses. After all, she said, "the only rule about a family is that you all love each other!"

As for civil marriage, I think you're right. Why not just have civil unions -- complete with custody, medical decision, tax, and estate rights -- for all, and religious marriage for anyone who wants it.

[Moxie]

Cricket, "tolerance"? I certainly hope not. That implies that I get to decide who's worthy.

My ideal is that there would be no need for civil mariage because everyone would have all the same protections under the law and benefits that people now can only get by being married in a civil ceremony. Marriage should only be for people who want to have a religious ceremony (of whatever type they want--I'm using the word "religious" as shorthand for "meaningful to you, whether it involves invocation of a higher power or not") as a signal or marker for themselves and their families and friends. Go read Peter's Cross Station--she wrote what I mean.

MotherPie, "LBGT family" is shorthand for a family including a person who identifies as lesbian, bisexual, gay, or transgender.

[Menita]

Marry me.

[Cricket]

I aspire to a civil ceremony (by Elvis, actually), but I do not think it should be a limiting factor to what others might desire in order to be legally married. Your quick statement didn't deliver that message, but I understand you now. Thanks.

[Jill]

Okay, I am sending this link to everyone I know. Thanks for this.

[Amy]

Amen, sister.

But a bit confused on the no civil marriage point -- probably due to my practical lawyer brain -- wouldn't we still need something under the law that grants couples who choose to "partner" a special status? Whether you call it a marriage or a partnership arrangement, you need something that legally confers that status, no? Health and death benefits seem to be the most obvious reasons why you do.

[Rosemary Grace]

Bravo!

Heh, my husband and I had a religious no-legal-paperwork ceremony in front of close friends of similar beliefs, then a year later had a spiritual (toned down the religion specifics) ceremony with legal paperworks and both families. I liked being able to do the spiritual commitment, and then reaffirm it and add in the legal part.

Two dear friends of mine are the Human Rights Campaign spotlight for May. http://www.hrc.org/road_to_equality/spotlight/spotlight.htm
They have had a commitment ceremony, a civil marriage in Vermont, AND they went up to San Francisco when SF was handing out marriage liscences to same sex couples. Married three times, together over 12, still not legally recognized as married. Shish.

[rocketdyke]

nice :)
i really respect that you are so committed to trying to make your church and your world more like the way you think it should be. thats very tiring work, but so important, and it makes it nice to know you.

[MotherPie]

Thanks Moxie for the term definition. I think I'm sort of old fashioned on this regarding marriage but probably need to consider civil marriages being ok. Haven't debated it that much. It does take a village to care for children, though.
Got it.
Cheers.

[chris]

I'm a little confused about the "no civil unions" thing. Probably because, like Amy, I have a lawyer brain. And for the same reasons as she points out.

[wix]

If I'd encountered people as open-minded as you in my youth in the church, I might never have left.

Speaking of religion, I'll be posting the story of my second baptism sometime this week, so, watch for it.

[theresa]

Moxie -
Great post. It hit me very hard and resulted in tears flowing for the second time today, as I tried to explain in my own less articulate fashion on my little blog.
Yes, we are all LGBT families.