Speaking one's truth, free speech, and "that of God in All"

I have been out of the loop for the past few weeks, but I was asked recently my thoughts about the comments of the Chick-Fil-A CEO about gay marriage.  After doing a little more reading about it, I have to be honest, I think the reaction from the left on this (the mayors of Boston, Chicago and DC in particular) was way over the top and ultimately counter-productive, fueling the divide unnecessarily. 

Here’s what I know:  Chick-Fil-A is a fast-food corporation that is not open on Sundays.  This is not a fiscal decision, but a faith-based decision with fiscal implications.  Now think about it: in general, if a corporation like this is closed on Sunday, while most of the competitors are open, would you think this is a socially-liberal organization?  I certainly didn’t.  So now the CEO is ASKED his opinion on gay marriage, and he speaks his truth.  Given that Chick-Fil-A keeps its doors closed on Sundays as part of keeping the day sacred, why on earth did this surprise anyone?  The reaction of the left on this shows both ignorance (where have you been all these years, only now learning about this CEO?) and picks a fight where, honestly, I don’t think one was needed. 

There is a part of me that feels for the CEO.  He spoke his truth, and not only he but all his employees take a hit.  Other than closing on Sundays, I don’t see any other place in the corporation where faith influences practice.   This seems to me clearly a free-speech issue, and an example of where the activist world perhaps has too much time on its hands to generate reactivity – not thinking.  Because my aunt “likes” Chick-Fil-A on facebook, am I supposed to take offense?  Hardly.  As I said, there is something I admire about this company in its “closed on Sundays” practice.  To be honest, I think more companies should consider taking a day to put family, friends and faith above profit.  I also think it is a sad day when people are afraid to speak their truth – especially when asked.  Change is not going to happen solely through protest; conversation reaches those who often are pushed away by protest.  In this way, I think the activist reaction to the CEO’s statement has done more harm than good.  As my own protest, I am more likely to eat at Chick-Fil-A to show a support of free speech and good-faith effort at reconciliation. 

Is an opulent gay wedding really progress?

Last night a friend was telling me that one of his colleagues – a gay man – just proposed to his companion. With the recent approval of same-gender marriage, this is great that people can do this. It’s a true celebration of the achievements of the gay rights movement and the progression of society. But when I heard that the happy couple wants to have a big bash wedding and reception at the Newseum (rental alone is in the 10’s of thousands), I had to give pause. Earlier in the day, I heard a news story from Maryland about some legislative snags in a bill to approve gay marriage in that state. A legislator from Montgomery County stated that this issue is about civil rights. I have to say, when I put these two items together, I’m not as passionate about the cause.

The issue for me is not about marriage. I absolutely celebrate the rights of all to marry, and have been the benefit of such support. However, if we in the gay community are going to consider our cause a part of the larger civil rights and social justice movement, we should also be challenging each other in extending compassion and consideration to others. Personally, I’m not speaking up for gay rights so that wealthy gays and lesbians can have 6-figure weddings; I call the ability to marry "progress, but not the 6-figure wedding. To me, it’s just a gay form of greed, selfishness and conspicuous consumption and these are at the real basis of any true civil rights issue, in my opinion.

It saddens me to see a segment of our society that knows what it is to be marginalized acquire rights and then gleefully spends while forgetting that there are those who continue to be marginalized. To celebrate that greed and materialism transcend race, color and sexual orientation is no celebration at all. It’s a slap in the face of those still in need, and until we get serious about the underlying issues and connections, there will be no true equality.

More thoughts on the fallout from Rutgers

I have prided myself on being a bridge-builder across political and theological divides. With regards to gay rights, I am clear on a couple of things. For example, I know that being gay is not a choice. I know that when we can live in a world where we not fear the scorn of friends or the rejection of our family or faith because of our sexual orientation, we can be a healthier presence in the world. At the same time, I do not think that being gay absolves us from the responsibilities in our community to be good stewards, to bear witness to the richness and diversity of the glbt community, and that we can do what we can to support future generations regardless of whether we have children or not. One thing I cannot say with 100% authority is whether being gay or not is a sin. I truly do not believe it is, and no one can convince me that it is, but, ultimately, no one living on this earth is the ultimate authority of this.

The recent Rutgers case of invasion of privacy and suicide, and the public reaction to it, has had me thinking about all of these things, as much of our media and community have entered into some serious soul-searching. Some are looking for blame, and certainly the two students who engaged in the invasion of privacy should not be let off the hook. By the same token, perhaps the young man who took his life should share some of the responsibility for this as well. There are many of us who have felt intense pain and shame, but took into consideration the feelings of others in our decisions to plug on. Things that lead to suicide are rarely simple causal equations, but a myriad of complexities. I know this can sound incredibly cold, and I by no means discount the intensity of pain that can exist, but I also think it is important to not overly-victimize and glorify someone who takes his own life, and to state unequivocally that were it not for this act the outcome would have been different. There is often much more to the story. There can be too many copy-cats.

But beyond looking at this saga in a vacuum, or even in the lens of a university campus, I can't help but look at this through a macro-lens and think, well, what do you expect? We live in a world where gays and lesbians are routinely considered "less than equal". There are open community conversations about the worthiness and rights of gays and lesbians, and people in well-placed positions of power feel no qualms about denying gays and lesbians equality. Everything from Don't Ask/Don't Tell, to gay marriage, to child adoption create opportunities to reinforce the societal imprint that we are second-class citizens. Preachers and congregants in countless churches talk openly about the sinful life of gays. Quakers are no exception, as is evidenced by this letter. Lest we think that liberal Friends are absolved from this, even the most well-meaning of Friends can easily dehumanize glbt folks with the kindest of terms, but still talking about "them" as if we are not in the room. Even the recent study about the high-rates of HIV in the gay community and the reaction of the media are players in the dehumanization process, as written about here.

I can't help but think that righteous indignation and attacking of whole groups (such as the Mormon Church in this case) because of the heinous acts and words of some within those groups may actually hinder the ability to reach out with compassion, healing, support and love that is missing from all of this. I think we all could benefit from taking a deep breath and see, that, outside of this Rutgers incident, we all share a responsibility to see that situations like this do not get repeated. Our whole society works in concert to perpetuate the second-class citizenship of the glbt community. It's not any one church; it's our collective society, and many of us play into the process in subtle ways - even when we over-generalize our "glbt" friends. We just have to recognize that, as long as we do this, it gives license to those who choose to prey on the vulnerable for personal gain can do so against glbt folks. If we can recognize this, then we can start to hold each other accountable in our words and actions as we work towards that better place.

"Anti-Bullying" vs. "Kindness"

I was pleased and proud earlier this week to see my old school, Rutgers, embarking on a two-year effort to cultivate small acts of courtesy and compassion. So it was with tragic irony to read the story of the RU freshman who apparently took his own life after his roommate and her girlfriend got video footage of him with another male student having sex and spread it on the internet.

Predictably, it is easy to quickly line up and talk about how awful the two students are who did this, and that this is another example of how the attacks on the glbt youth have to stop. Human Rights Campaign sent an e-mail asking people to sign a petition to send to Education Secretary Arne Duncan demanding that sexual identity and gender orientation should be included in anti-bullying curriculum.

I am not a big fan of this approach. First, I have never thought that "anti-" campaigns are effective. They tend to doubly reinforce negative imagery, without promoting a vision of what we should move to (I've felt the same about the "War is not the Answer" campaign - war is the only image this sentence evokes). Second, if anti-bullying were really going to be successful, shouldn't the object be irrelevant. If we give a list of who should not be bullied, does that mean anyone not on the list is fair game?

Consider, instead, what Dan Savage is starting. In an NYTimes interview, he talked about a new web-program that shows gay teens images and stories of happy gay adults - not celebrities, but real people. I like this approach for two reasons: first, he acknowledges that there is little we can do to reach inside the school buildings with these messages for a number of reasons, and second, we don't have to wait until then. New technology allows us to connect with kids here and now. He also puts his effort into positive imagery.

To me, the main problem is not bullying, it's that we are not a very civil society, and this is both the tragedy and the opportunity that is playing out at Rutgers. The two horribly misguided teens who spread the video, to me, are part of the tragic narrative, not just two rotten eggs. They will no doubt be justly prosecuted and held accountable, but if it ends there, we all lose. We live in a voyeuristic society, and we raise kids in an education system that does little to nurture compassion. Even our service learning projects take our kids out of their community to nurture caring of outsiders, but not bringing them in. And then, of course, there is the whole media technology of violence and cruelty in news, talk shows, and video games. An "anti-bullying" curriculum doesn't stand a chance. But, a concerted effort at civility, I think, does. It must be sustained, and viewed as a rigorous exercise regimen that will start small and then build. Given our current climate, I look at it like this: we have to do an iron-man triathlon in three years, but for the last 10 we have been sitting on a couch, watching tv, eating potato chips and drinking soda. We need a good plan, but we can't magically expect to get up and run ten miles. Let's start with turning the tv off, and switching to juice and rice cakes. It's a long journey, but worth the effort.

We as a society have our work cut out for us. I don't believe in coincidences, so I think what happened at Rutgers shows that we have to make serious changes, and here's a reminder of why we need to do this. But it's not just at Rutgers. It's everywhere, including those who want to hang the two students who invaded the privacy of a fellow-student. What an opportunity to really shake the community to the need for change. Here's to hoping they can do it, and perhaps Quakers can commit to a similar path.

"With a Special Welcome to Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals and Transgendered"

At the local Friends Meeting, there is a smaller Meeting for Worship that meets at the same time as the big Meeting. I prefer the smaller meeting - the room seems more comfortable, and the spoken messages are fewer and, as a consequence, tend to be more centered. I say this cautiously, not wanting to pooh-pooh messages, but I have heard enough messages about Quaker righteousness to be happy for quite a while. There was also once a spoken message that was more of a plug for the Nominating Committee.

But, while I prefer the small Meeting, there is one thing that gnaws at me: most Sundays, the post-Meeting message is that this gathering has a "special welcome to people who are glbt". I understand that, prior to the last decade (or two), this was perhaps a necessary statement. I also know that this is very much the origins of this smaller meeting. But in 2010, in a city that now has legal gay marriage, I think that this welcoming message in the present tense is patronizing and out of touch. I also know that there are many in the Meeting who carry the scars and wounds from the time when this message was necessary. The repetition of the message in the present tense doesn't mesh with modern DC, but is really an homage to the past. To keep repeating the message also suggests that glbt folks are more welcome at this small Meeting than at the big Meeting, and that's not at all true.

Here's what I would suggest: drop "With a special welcome...". Perhaps replace this with something like "Welcome to this smaller Meeting, with its origins in being as a special welcoming place for glbt folks. We celebrate that this special welcome is no longer needed, but there are still many of us who appreciate the comforts of this smaller, often more quiet space."

Acceptance and Reconciliation: Two very different acts

At last weekend's Chicago Gay Pride Parade, a friend of mine brought a group of people to stand in the crowd in t-shirts that said quite simply "I'm Sorry". The group also had signs, one of which said "I used to be a Bible-banging Homophobe - Sorry". This friend, Andrew Marin (Founder of The Marin Foundation and author of the book "Love is an Orientation") has been doing some amazing work in the conservative/evangelical community over the past decade, growing in his ministry and using his life to build bridges. Andrew has a growing network of people who look at the movement of gay rights at this point not as a series of marches and protests, or as a campaign of tolerance and acceptance, but as a work of reconciliation and forgiveness. Here is a wonderful posting about the spirit of this work.

I have increasingly felt that the work of reconciliation is right up the alley of Friends. As Peacemakers, reconciliation and forgiveness are vital to healing wounds so that we can move forward. It is a definite work of faith and heart. Too often, however, I think we get stuck on tolerance and acceptance, and it creates blindspots. Too often I have encountered Friends who have no idea that there has been a fairly dramatic change in the attitudes of evangelicals and conservatives with regards to the glbt community. My own sense is that this is because, in our desire to be accepting of all people, we often falsely believe that our acceptance alone is enough to bring healing. This is not so. And as cycles of violence tend to repeat themselves, we may be standing at a juncture where we Friends are perpetuating the cycles by not recognizing this. If we do not recognize that there are people like Andrew out there (and there are many), then we miss an opportunity to be a part of the reconciliation process. In doing so, we may also be falsely casting aspersions on people who are more accepting of the glbt-community than we know, and for this, at some point, we also will have to give apologies.

What we cannot do is hide behind our walls and claim that we will only change our beliefs about "Christians" and the gay community when we see it. We have to travel outside our comfort zones - as Andrew has done - with eyes wide open and deep love in our hearts. It is out there and has been for many years. We have to stop asking for the changes, but instead asking ourselves why we continue to not see what is very much there?

Movements and Activists: are they the same thing?

This past week, there were two things I noticed in the news that I think might give pause to those of us who are firmly in the gay-rights camp. I am not sure what to make of them, but I think they are both telling of the times in which we live.

The first: at the recent gun-rights rally that was held on Federal Plaza in Washington, DC, a transgendered person was among the speakers. She was making the statement that all members of the glbt community should take up arms for personal protection. The crowd response was a mixed bag: clearly, her message was in-line with the theme of the day, but the messenger in this case raised the level of discomfort in the crowd a bit.

The second: As President Obama was making a campaign speech for Senator Boxer in California, he was heckled and disrupted by representatives of a group called “Get EQUAL” for not moving fast enough on the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy. This message is not that dissimilar than the frequent e-mails I get from Human Rights Campaign usually “demanding” something – either military service, marriage, or a prom.

Personally, if this is what the gay-rights movement has become – a group of impatient, demanding, self-serving people, I want nothing to do with them. First of all, as a pacifist, I am not enamored with the outright violence of gun use for any purpose. Beyond that, I find these days that demanding things during a time when we are on a clear positive trajectory in terms of gay rights, is divisive. My own experience is that when we build relationships with people not completely aligned with us but also not against us, they may move in our direction. I also know that impatiently demanding things is not a real effective way of expanding the choir; in fact, it can have the opposite effect, making natural allies not so comfortable with the movement.

All of this is reflective of the times in which we live. Impatience, and reactive institutional behavior that may have had some movement successes in the past, but are now done more often I think to maintain the institutions rather than the movement. Think about it: Obama has said he is not in favor of DADT. He has instructed the military to find a way to get rid of it. That is more than his predecessors, and it will happen. Talk to most people in the military (especially those under 30, as is true throughout the country), and you will see that attitudes have changed dramatically, and policies will also change. To protest and disrupt Obama just seems counter-productive, and not recognizing that gay rights are part of a movement, with “move” being the key word.

At the same time, perhaps a little celebration about how far we have come. Across the political, social and cultural spectrum people from the glbt community are becoming increasingly visible. There are now openly-gay Republicans, Evangelicals, and Libertarians. Within the ranks of the military, there is an increasing comfort with sexual diversity. These are all signs that we are on the right course, and there really is no stopping the trend: it’s more a matter of pace.

I personally think that if gay institutions want to be a part of a movement again, and not just reactive institutions using tired practices, they are going to need to completely re-think their strategy that in some ways is actually slowing down the progress by dividing and stigmatizing. Do away with gay pride parades, or at least recognize that they are political and corporate spectacles (that often actually stigmatize the gay community) and not part of the movement. Instead, let’s organize community picnics – low-key affairs – in places that are less-welcoming but build community and visibility. Let’s keep speaking truth to power, but with an openness, a sense of doubt, and a willingness to look at our own hurts. Let’s not protest the people on our side, but nurture positive relations with those who are not entirely with us. New times call for new actions.

Holding pain and reconciliation

It is a constant challenge to do social justice work as a pacifist. For those of us who are passionate about building bridges, one of the tricks is to find a way that holds and honors the justified pains of those who have been hurt in their journey, while at the same time honoring those who have chosen different paths and even reaching out to those who have participated in perpetuating the hurt either in actions, in messages, or through silence. As Genocide Watch posits, step one to genocide is to divide between us and them so, if we are to get to the root causes of this cycle of violence, at some point we have to look at how we might sit in judgment of who the bad people are, and how this is divisive.

It takes patience, and is very gentle work that also I am finding takes a fair amount of fortitude. I experienced some of the challenges first hand with the military potluck we hosted at William Penn House last November, and I find that the challenges are very similar when it comes to advancing gay rights. It really is about a process, not a topic, but each topic or issue provides an opportunity to explore the process. Gay/Lesbian rights is just such a topic to both explore and learn how to walk this what can at times feel like a mine field.

Prior to moving to Washington, I was exposed to a deeper level of reflection about social issues when I lived in Wheaton, IL. There were many gays and lesbians in Wheaton, most of whom chose to live in this town despite the reputation and reality that this is a very conservative town. Just prior to that, I had been living in Oak Park, IL and working on the northside of Chicago, both very gay-friendly areas, but not necessarily communities that shared the depth of faith or reflection that a town like Wheaton does. My upbringing in a secular humanist family prepared me much more for places like Oak Park than Wheaton, but here I was. I quickly learned two important things: the first is that groups are not as easy to stereotype, and the second perhaps most important learning, but one that flows from the first, is that when we engage in relationships with open ears and hearts, not only will we see things we never expected, but all participants in the experience can truly be transformed.

So after I moved to Washington, DC, I find that many monthly and yearly Quaker meetings are struggling with what kinds of relationships they want to maintain with Friends United Meeting (because of FUM's hiring policy that excludes any person who is in a relationship that is not legally sanctioned). The struggle seemed to be between our commitment to stay connected and part of a global community and at the same time not perpetuate or re-open the wounds of those who we love who have been hurt. Reconciliation, forgiveness and healing are concepts that come to mind when I think about things like this.

We recently held a potluck at William Penn House, and invited 3 men who were raised in very conservative Christian families and communities. Unlike so many of us gay people who have distanced ourselves from the Bible and chosen to focus on the spirit rather than the letter of the Bible for our own protection (or, in many cases, completely walked away from religion), these men have done the exact opposite. They (and others I have met) so deeply love the Bible that they could not walk away and yet they were not going to live life as a lie. I met these guys through The Gay Christian Network, and I have met others who have had similar journeys. What I found walking the secular humanist/liberal faith circle was that there were not many voices like these emerging and these voices are the kind that might help bridge the divides.

What has stuck with me the most is quite simply "LOVE". I have learned that many people whom we would call "homophobes" are driven by love - for God, and for their gay children who they fear won't get to heaven, and that thought is unbearable. These men who spoke at the potluck deeply love the Bible, and could not fathom that God - who made them - would also hold the judgments of condemnation that they had been taught. So they searched deeper. They know that there will always be those who reject them and accuse them of twisting the Bible, but I found that they have given me tools for holding the dialog. A big one, for example, is for me not to run from a discussion because I do not know the Bible, but to instead ask a person if he she can explain not just the verse and what it means, but also what the context is - meaning, what was going on in this story of the Bible?

So this is our dilemma. Do we, as Friends, love our Faith - especially that there is that of God in All - so much that we will not walk away from loving all because people we love have been hurt? Do we not also love the children and young adults in those faith traditions where hurt might be perpetuating? Can we consciously share this love for its power of reconciliation, or do we merely walk away from the conflict? When we say we welcome all people, or consider our Meetings to be "open and affirming", do we really open ourselves to the diverse experiences that walk through the door? And, finally, does "open and affirming" mean the same thing as "reconciling"?

Uganda and anti-homosexuality

Dave Zarembka is a member of the Bethesda Friends Monthly Meeting, and is the head of the Africa Great Lakes Initiative. Like me, he has been pretty passionate that we maintain open relations with Friends United Meeting despite its hiring policy that does not allow for the hiring of anyone in a relationship that is not recognized by law (meaning any gay couple, or a hetero couple not legally married). It is with this in mind that I think serious consideration needs to be given to this letter sent out by Dave:

Dear Friends,

The Uganda legislature is considering one of the most repressive laws
that I have ever heard of. This law is geared against homosexuals, their
parents, teachers, counselors, landlord/lady, medical practioners, etc.
Punishment for homosexuality includes life imprisonment or the death
penalty. In addition everyone in the society will be an informant. Here
are some of the provisions:

- any parent who does not denounce their lesbian daughter or gay son to
the authorities will be fined Ush 5,000,000/= (about $250 in a country
where many live on $1 per day) or put away for three years.
- any teacher who does not report a lesbian or gay pupil to the
authorities within 24 hours will be fined Ush 5,000,000/= ($250) or put
away for three years in prison.
- any landlord or landlady who happens to give housing to a suspected
homosexual risks seven years of imprisonment.
The Ugandan Civil Society Coalition on Human Rights and Constitutional
Law concludes, "In short, this bill targets everybody, and involves
everybody: it cannot be implemented without making every citizen spy on
his or her neighbours."
It is time for folks to organize like the anti-aparteid movement in South
Africa. Boycott visitng Uganda, no investment, withdraw current
investment, ban on visas for politicans and atheletes, etc. Pressure the
US Government to confront President Museveni of Uganda who is reported to
be supporting the bill. Uganda is one of the US's stongest allies in
Africa so the US Government can put a lot of good pressure on Uganda.
(Uganda supports the US against those "bad guys" in Sudan, has AU troops
in Somalia). There is lots of potential for action and should include
both North America and Europe. Campaign to get them kicked out of the
Commonwealth.

I suggest that these actions begin immediately before the bill is enacted
into law.

Peace,
David Zarembka
Lumakanda, Kenya

I will get in touch with some folks about what actions we might be able to put
together on this.  I am pretty sure that Bishop Akinola's Anglican church, which
has strong moral and financial support here in the US, is a part of this, so action
may not only be about Uganda, but some of the congregations here that have
left the Episcopal church to join Akinola's church.

HIV-testing and Quakerism

What happens when an entrenched system faces competition?

We found some of this out last week. For years, I have been working with a diverse group of people to promote that all people know their HIV-status as the starting point for stopping the spread of HIV (see www.mosaicinitiative.org for more about this work). We have worked with HIV/AIDS organizations in Illinois, DC and western Kenya. I have seen people who want to volunteer their time to helping stop the spread of HIV, and be told that they can deliver meals once a week. I’ve met with senators, elected officials, and other government folks to see what we can do to make testing more accessible – including making tests more portable, and removing the pre-test history questions from the process. All to no avail, despite conflicting messages and policies between federal and state authorities. There has been a protective nature to tests and testing that borders on territorial. I have seen people turned away because there are not enough tests, while also hearing that testing is being under-utilized in other areas. I’ve seen “Catch-22’s” where there are no laws against distributing HIV-tests, but no access to acquiring tests. And I’ve seen panel discussions where organizations blame everyone else and call for National Strategies, but resist change. No wonder HIV continues to spread – the institutions need it to stay viable.

A chink in all of this took place last week. A few weeks ago, I heard about a home test kit that can be purchased on-line (http://www.anytestkits.com/hiv-aids-test-kit.htm). It’s not FDA-approved, but I ordered some anyway. We started to promote that we were going to be distributing these tests. Out of the blue, last week 8 FDA administrators got on a conference call to tell me to cease and desist. I responded that, unless there could be some kind of movement (speeding up FDA approval of home-test kits or removal of pre-test questions to name two possibilities) that I did not see why I should. Plus, after years of trying to reach people to see how we can make a difference, it took possession of these tests to catch attention. Now, a week later, there has been a meeting with one of these FDA people, plus the head of the White House office on AIDS and an MD within CDC who has done research to support greater access to and portability of tests. In talking with these folks, one thing is clear: the current system is not working. The other thing that is clear is that “AIDS, Inc.” is as entrenched in maintaining the status quo as anything else that is out there. Perhaps what has been most interesting is the extent to which people have been forthcoming with information, although there is tacit agreement that much of this information is “off the record”.

Interestingly, as we promoted and collected signatures for home-based HIV-testing (or, perhaps more appropriately, since we are really looking to promote a creative dialog, we should call it “portable testing”), it has been mostly the white gay community that has been the least receptive to this idea. I think there are two possible theories: the gay community still very much carries the scars and trauma of AIDS, and/or AIDS was the first legitimate social institution to have openly gay people leading. It has also been gay people that have said we have to do testing within the law. I maintain: when did any good laws come about without the bad laws being broken?

So, what to take from this:
• Viable options creates more opportunities for change than simply staying within the status quo.
• There has not been a real new idea regarding HIV-prevention. “Portable testing” might be just the ticket to spur new, creative dialog. Look at the doors possession of such tests opened.
• When you can catch people’s attention, you can take a 30 second conversation and turn it into a 5 minute conversation. For example, when someone says he/she is against home-testing, consider where these might be useful (i.e. for women who take home-pregnancy tests, or for repeat testers, or for couples where one partner is positive). I like to envision doing college classes, with visualizations of testing, and then giving options for testing.
• For HIV-testing organizations that say they want to empower people, I say you don’t empower by limiting options.
• On the sly, I was also told by a reliable source that the US-approved HIV-tests are inferior to what are used in other parts of the world.
• I have also now seen research that shows:
o 93.6% of people who do home-sample collections can do it accurately. 95% of clinics do it accurately. So the issue of poor sampling at home is minimal.
o The majority of people who do home-sample collections (the Home Access mail-in tests) are people who would not go to an MD or clinic for an HIV-test).
o People who have access to testing of any type are 47 times less likely to contract HIV.

Where do we go from here? I’m going to be following up with exerting pressure to speed up and open up approvals for options. I’ll also see how we can help facilitate community dialogs and pilot programs. One of the messages is that we don’t need a multi-million dollar marketing campaign to raise awareness; we need a 2 year campaign to get everyone to know his/her status, and we need to change the starting pronoun from “them” to “us”, including all of us.

Gays in the Military

In this morning's Washington Post, some military folks wrote an editorial about gays in the military - and how they should not be allowed (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/14/AR2009041402704.html). What is most interesting for me is not so much what these writers adhere to (and the amazing loopholes in their thinking - it's not as if you can tell who's gay by his/her skin color, and it is not uncommon for people to come to grips with their sexual orientation at about the same time they would be in the military); what is most interesting are the comments made by readers. They are a clear example of the desperate need for the art of dialog. I have written before that love and logic will be the means through which our world will come together; both of these are necessary. Unfortunately, we too often start with logic; I think we need to start more with love, and then engage in dialog. Maybe we could also ask ourselves to consider supporting the ban on gays as a starting point to get all people out of the military?

I also think learning, practicing and engaging in dialog that is led by love is something that those of us who are truly passionate about non-violence and doing what we can to remove the occasions for future violence should start to embrace. Anywhere we turn in the world, it seems that there is an edge of violence in the air, and we can expect more as people become more fearful, and more vulnerable. I know that for many, glbt issues are not at the forefront of people's minds but, as with HIV-prevention, I think that how we can engage in these issues can be good opportunities for practicing how to deal with some of the more difficult issues. The issues are becoming more prominent in the media (two examples: http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid78359.asp, and http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/14/AR2009041403455.html), so we may as well get involved.

Progress on gay rights

Over the past few months, there has been an enormous amount of movement on the rights of same gender-couples to get married. We all know about California and the voter decision to support Prop 8. There was also, in November, legislation in Florida and Arizona that put various restrictions on same gender families. But then, this week alone, Iowa courts and Vermont legislature made same-gender marriage a reality in those states. The District of Columbia is taking similar action. On a national level, there has been increased discussion about letting civil unions be the rule of the land for all people, and marriages be the acts of churches - a compromise that for many seems to have merit.

At the same time, in Iraq, (see NYTimes article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/world/middleeast/08gay.html?_r=1&emc=eta1) there is a backlash in some of the more conservative regions against gay men. As quoted from the article: "Clerics in Sadr City have urged followers to help root out homosexuality in Iraqi society, and the police have begun their own crackdown on gay men. 'Homosexuality is against the law,' said Lt. Muthana Shaad, at a police station in the Karada district, a neighborhood that has become popular with gay men. 'And it’s disgusting.' For the past four months, he said, officers have been engaged in a 'campaign to clean up the streets and get the beggars and homosexuals off them.'”

All progress has elements of violent reactivity. No doubt that there is a rapid change in the expansion of gay rights, but we can expect an increase in reactivity as well, unfortunately. It always seems to be a part of the struggle.

I think it is important that we as Friends and Friend-communities look to see what we can do to support the movement. Paradoxically, I do not think that what we should do is create a litmus test for gay marriage. I just don't think society as a whole is there yet. But I think we can create allies for gay marriage among those whom are not yet there, but who are repulsed by people such as Fred Phelps (see www.godhatesfags.com), and by the attitudes of Lt. Shaad as quoted in the Times. Patience and perseverance will get us there, with a dash of faith. We know that opponents to gay marriage are gearing up, and their tactic is going to be to divide, and let gay marriage be the dividing issue. If we react along these lines, rather than continue to reach across these lines to those who are not at the far extreme but just on other side of the line, we will do more harm than good. To react divisively plays right into the "us vs. them" game. I, for one, will continue to look to expand who the "us" is rather than focus on "them".

Are all homophobes equals?

So, I'm riding my bike to work the other day along the river in Georgetown and there's a bumper sticker on the back of a car that says "Marriage=1 man+1woman". My first thought was "homophobe". Thankfully, acivities like biking allow for deeper processing than the first reaction. So, as I made my way towards the Lincoln Memorial, I started to think about progess. Lincoln himself, by today's standards, would certainly be considered a racist, but in his day, he was very much a progressive. This had me thinking about the owner of this car, and a desire to not give him/her a piece of my mind, but to instead maybe ask a few questions.

Here are two perhaps most clarifying questions:
1. Is the origin of the bumper sticker related to same-gender marriage, polygamy, or both?
2 (and really, the more important, as far as dialog goes and assuming that the bumper sticker is really a statement about the sanctity of marriage, prop 8, etc) would be questions that seek to identify where this person stand on glbt rights in general. People as diverse as Barack Obama, Jim Wallis, Rick Warren, Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps (of www.godhatesfags.com fame) all stand against "Marriage=1 man+1man" (or woman+woman), but the clearly have very differnt takes in the bigger scheme of things.

What I am really starting to appreciate that we all draw lines in the sand on issues, but perhaps our most important allies are not those on our side of the line, but those just on the other side. I suspect that the leaders of movements recognize this, and often moderate messages to try and garner a 51% split. This is why there is so much yelling about gay marriage, and so little talk about couple's rights.

So, back to my bumper sticker friend; were I to first engage him/her, it would probably have been with an edge. But, given time to reflect, and to be still within, I am pretty confident that, given time, we could have a wonderful confersation. I'd hedge my bets that the person might be very much for most rights for the glbt community, if we had the chance to talk and get to know each other. Of course, in our drive-by bumper sticker culture, a beep of the horn and flip of the finger may also be part of the norm. I'm just not sure that this kind of venting helps advance the cause of peace.

"Gay bishop will kick off inauguration event"

"Gay bishop will kick of inauguration event" was the title of the e-mail that came in to my inbox from Human Rights Campaign.

Is that all that Bishop Robinson is?

There's not a whole lot to ponder about or to profoundly say about this. It is a sad commentary, I think, on the myopic vision of an organization as big as HRC that is supposedly out there representing all of us. It does speak to how I think the institutionalization of a cause ends up demeaning and dehumanizing the very people it is meant to serve (I've seen this in AIDS work as well).

More on Warren and Obama

Here's some more thoughts on Warren and Obama. As the national dialog continues, I really do see a lot of good coming from this: (this is originally posted on the William Penn House blog)

I often find myself, as the "gay guy who has worked with evangelicals", being asked my opinion about Rick Warren being such a visible part of the upcoming inauguration. Here are some of my responses:

1. I fully understand the disappointment and anger, especially on the heels of the passage of Proposition 8.

2. I'm not sure it's fair to say that Obama has "turned" on anything as much as partisans on the left (including glbt advocates) were blinded by their own zeal. Obama has been to Saddleback a few times (including HIV testing w/Sen Brownback a few years ago). Obama never said he supports same-sex marriage - in fact he has said the opposite. He certainly never claimed to make gay rights a priority.

3. I'm not sure that Obama is simply trying to woo people who did not support him. Obama won California fairly easily, but Prop 8 also passed. Clearly, many Obama supporters voted for Prop 8. I'm guessing if Obama were more assertive about gay rights, he would have had a narrower victory.

4. On a more "Quaker" level, anger is divisive. Is it our role, as Quakers, to necessarily have to choose sides on this issue, or can we find a more loving response? Rather than lament and fight, what if we were to instead say "this decision has been made. What is ours to do now?"

5. I think the gay community would do well to understand that there have been so many advancements over the past decade that society needs a rest. We are on a positive course without a doubt, and within ten years all will be well. In the meantime, let's step up responsibility rhetoric, rather than rights. An example? Let's step up HIV-prevention. There's too much complacency and even complicitness in the gay bars, pornography, and internet. We cannot simply sit back and blame the government for the continuing spread of HIV in the gay community.

6. Finally, I think the Warren announcement gives pause: let's look at the entirety of this person and of the movement. Much is being exposed. Warren has done a lot for poverty and AIDS. He (and moreso his wife, Kay) have talked of being open and loving to people with AIDS. How does this settle with judgment of those at-risk for HIV: do they need to get HIV for us to care? Warren has also been clear that his belief does come with questioning. In addition, I know many evangelical Christians who are also upset by this announcement, and also many non-evangelicals who have really liked Warren's work and now are re-thinking that because they did not know his stance on glbt marriage. Anything that exposes where we truly are in society, I think is a good thing.

Basically, I think this, along with the passage of Prop 8, are quickly going to be "2steps back, 4 steps forward". We are already seeing this as a new level of dialog has emerged about gay rights, the fullness of people like Rick Warren, how he differs from the Pat Robertson/James Dobson crowd, and the hypocricy of being a "leader" in the fight against AIDS while being against gay rights. An example is Frank Rich's column (12/28/08) where he says: "Equally lame is the argument mounted by an Obama spokeswoman, Linda Douglass, who talks of how Warren has fought for 'people who have H.I.V./AIDS.' Shouldn’t that be the default position of any religious leader? Fighting AIDS is not a get-out-of-homophobia-free card. That Bush finally joined Bono in doing the right thing about AIDS in Africa does not mitigate the gay-baiting of his 2004 campaign, let alone his silence and utter inaction when the epidemic was killing Texans by the thousands, many of them gay men, during his term as governor." Bringing the long needed discussion of the separation of AIDS work from the people who get HIV/AIDS and how they get it to the forefront can only be a good thing.

I think, ultimately, a lot of good can come from this. What will only delay the progress from here is letting anger get the best of us.

Rick Warren, Obama and gays

One of the big stories today is that Rick Warren is going to be doing the invocation at the Presidential inauguration next month. Many gay rights groups and supporters are up in arms, and have every right to be. Warren's church is in California, the state that just passed Prop 8. You can be pretty certain that most of Rick's congregation supported the measure, and if he just said the word, thousands would have voted the other way. So I fully understand why people are upset and disappointed with Obama for choosing Warren, and think the timing is a bit like throwing salt on the wounds.

But, I also see many good things that might come of this. See, I think what Obama may be most effective at doing early in his term as president is to further expose the world for what it is, and then bring healing to it with his compassion. Let's take this example:

First, thanks to the announcement today, Rick Warren has all of a sudden had to become much more accountable for his stand on gay rights. I'm sure that many people who have admired Rick's work - from his AIDS and poverty work to his book "A Purpose-Driven Life" did not know his stance on gay rights. In fact, I know many people who are staunch gay rights supporters and love Rick's work. Exposing this is not a bad thing. As Ricky Ricardo used to say to Lucy, "you got some 'splainin to do". Specifically, now Warren and perhaps many of his ilk will have more pressure to consider the dilemma: how do you maintain a stance that we need greater compassion for and inclusiveness of people with HIV/AIDS, while at the same time, condemn the very people who are most likely to get HIV in the US. Do gay people have to get HIV in order for them to become welcome? Does AIDS make someone more worthy of compassion? If that's so, how are we to stop the spread of HIV?

Second, what this announcement may also expose is the limits of Rick's reach within the emergent evangelical movement. Most of the people I know from that movement (granted, not a tone, but certainly some that are well-connected) are disappointed with this selection and would have preferred Jim Wallis. This will certainly bring greater scrutiny to just how progressive Warren is.

But, what is the right response from Quakers? Should we align with Human Rights Campaign, denounce the decision, and be angry and disappointed? Perhaps, as humans, these are understandable. But I think that the Quakerly presence calls us to look inside - especially those of us who are gay and lesbian - to acknowledge our hurt, to own it, and to speak to it. But then, let's reach out to accept this gesture of reaching out. Clearly, there are many issues that Obama and Warren do not agree on. Obama, back in 2006, took a lot of heat for going to Saddleback church to speak about HIV and to get tested there with Sen. Brownback of Kansas. The thing is, Obama has not changed his stance on issues - from stem cell/reproductive rights, to gay rights. It's important to keep in mind that he has never said he is for gay marriage - in fact he has said the opposite, although if the courts decide otherwise (as they did in California) he would be ok with that. The ability to join together despite differences is important these days.

As for gay rights and gay marriage, the day is coming. I actually think this announcement today is another step in that direction. I'm sure there will be many on the far right who will be denouncing Warren for being a part of the inauguration as well. As RF Kennedy said, one out of five people will always be against whatever you do. Let's try to be a part of the other 80%, but at the same time, be clear about who we are at all times and hold our heads high. I have found that if we hold that within ourselves, we can find ourselves seated at the table with people like Warren, sitting as equals.

Bystanders...

This past weekend, I co-facilitated a Teachers of Peace workshop in southwest Ohio through Wilmington College. In Ohio, "anti-bullying" is a big thing in the schools, and so it was big in the teachers' minds this weekend. What emerged as a topic was not the bully and the victim, but the bystander. Martin Luther King said "the world begins to end when we are silent on the things that matter". Throughout the course of the discussion, what was interesting to me was to observe how easy it is for all of us to fall into the role of bystander: the teacher who sees in her gym class when students are overly aggressive to the "soft" (meaning gay?) students, and only gives a warning; the teacher who shops at Wal-Mart despite knowing their gender, race, and overall employee bullying tactics; and for me to see the four college students walk right by and look at the woman in DC who was getting ready to jump off a bridge down to a freeway (others of us intervened).

What leads to some of this? Paralysis is part of it; uncertainty of what we can do (such as in the case of the aggressive behavior in the gym); and self-preservation as in the Wal-Mart case (many people shop at Wal-Mart because of the affordability of the products).

At the other end of the spectrum, however, there is the issue of over-reacting in a way that causes more harm than good. To startle the person about to jump may cause him/her to lose balance; to overtly punish and shame the aggressive gym student may simply drive the behavior further underground; and to simply stop shopping at Wal-Mart will do little unless it is done in mass numbers.

So what can we do? Well, what we talked about in the workshop was to put things into a time continuum, and ask the question "where would we like things to be in 5 or 10 years? what can we do now to move things in that direction?" Ultimately we can "speak truth" and bear witness with patience and perseverance. The Wal-Mart shopper can write letters to the editor about unjust practices, or take offensive/mean-spirited t-shirts off the shelves and to the manager to complain about them; the gym teacher can start to track the behavior in the gym, and ask other teachers to do the same outside the gym class, and then take it to the administrator.

The challenge is that we live in a world of polarity - all or nothing. Often we respond to bullying behavior in all its culturally nuanced ways with a bullying response. That's the problem with "anti-" anything; it's about "combating" something which just brings more combat. The real work is to prevent the condition - something that takes a long time, but something we can move towards every day with patience and perseverance.

I am spending much of this summer and early fall going to a few Yearly Meetings and other Friends gatherings both as a participant and as a presenter/facilitator. At some of these gatherings, my topic is really a simple story of the experiences I have had with many evangelical Christians in the midwest, and some subsequent experiences in Kenya, where I have experienced the truth that bearing witness to each can bring about positive change is discussed. This is a challenge for me to talk about, because all I can really do is say that it has happened. The challenge arises when people want to understand how or why it happens, which is something I cannot describe. Perhaps we as a society have become so trained to believe that unless we can clearly state what the outcome will be of our efforts, we cannot engage in anything new. But I think there is more to it than that.

Skeptically, I think there are a number of factors at work: fear, desire for status-quo, ego, the need to be right (and others to be wrong) are among them, and these, I suspect, are not conscious and are a web of synergistic forces not easily delineated. In fact, even trying to delineate them then becomes a further act-delaying tactic.

Where does the "leap of faith" come into play? For years, I have told clients in my private counseling practice that one definition of insanity is to repeat the same behavior and expect different results. The hard part is that we so often don't recognize our own patterns; we need to be in relation with others in order to see our patterns (or, as I like to think, our narratives). What is most helpful is to engage in relations with people that we may consider not like-minded, and to do so in a way of simply witnessing and understanding, not argument and persuasion. I have found that we can then become more conscious of our patterns - our fears, our need to control, our beliefs, our mis-beliefs, etc.

This comes up now, as I find that one of the most frequent questions that arises at the various gatherings I have been attending is: "what can we (Meetings, groups) do to help support the glbt community", especially from among groups that already seem to be "open and affirming". I don't have an answer. I'm not the glbt community. The best I can say is be open to the possibilities, and build relationships out in the community. Perhaps become vocal when you see injustice, but be careful to not be too one-sided - it can fuel a righteousness that does not foster compassion and peace.

As a slight tangent, I recently attended a Congregational church in Silver Spring, MD. It's an open and affirming congregation, with a message of come as you are. One thing they have printed on their program also says "Becoming anti-racist". I love that they acknowledge the "becoming" of this. It's self-effacing; acknowledging that they are not their yet. Perhaps, this notion of "becoming" accepting, or "becoming" open-minded, is something we can all do, rather than state unequivocally that we are open-minded, or open and affirming.

Compassion for Enemies

The acronym SPICE was brought up in today’s Meeting for Worship, with each letter explained: S for Simplicity, P for Peace, I for Integrity, C for Community, and E for Equality. I wondered, why couldn’t the C stand for Compassion instead? And my thoughts swam backwards towards a subject I’ve been thinking about for a while: the Armenian Genocide and the role of Ottomon Turkey in the genocide (and modern-day Turkey in its denial).

Since some of you don’t know me personally and don’t read my livejournal, you may not know that my dad’s family is ethnically Armenian. They lived in Lebanon for a number of years before relocating to America in 1965. We are proud to be Armenian. I’m proud to be Armenian. But part of being Armenian is knowing about what’s been called the “first modern genocide”, that of the Armenians by Ottoman Turks in 1915, where over a million Armenians, including pregnant mothers, elderly men and women, infants, children… everyone, were killed by various horrific ways. But it didn’t start then, not really. The first massacres started in 1896, when hundreds of thousands of Armenians were killed.

Turkey has denied that the slaughter of Armenians in 1915 was a genocide, calling it “civil unrest”, etc. No one except Turks and those paid off by Turkey believes this. But because modern-day Turkey denies the Armenian Genocide, there’s a lot of anger between modern-day Armenians and modern-day Turks. It’s part of being Armenian today, knowing that you’ve lost relatives in the Genocide and knowing that there’s a possibility Turkey will never accept it as genocide, much less apologize.

I’m reading a book now that gives me hope. It’s called “A Shameful Act”, and it’s written by a Turk (who is now barred from Turkey, of course). Most books about the Armenian Genocide focus on the slaughter, the brutality, the sadness, and the official decisions that led to them. This book focuses on the history that made the Genocide possible, what was actually going on in the Ottoman Empire such that the conditions were there for a genocide to happen.

And reading about how scared the Ottoman Turkish government was of losing everything: country, identity, religion, I’ve come to understand that it was fear, not hate, that led to the genocide. And as I was sitting in Meeting for Worship this morning, a wave of compassion swept over me and I found myself thinking, “I forgive you. I forgive you for what you did to my ancestors and what you are still doing by denial. I forgive you.”

Even more than that, I found myself imagining how soul-destroying it must be to be so consumed by fear that one thinks genocide is the only way. Can any of you imagine what that must feel like? To be so afraid of something, of your identity being swallowed by Others, that killing those Others is the only solution?

I can’t imagine that kind of fear.

And then, an uncomfortable thought rose in me, spurned by a message in Meeting: what if we Armenians hadn’t been so Other? I’m not in any way blaming the Armenian Genocide on Armenians. The Ottomon Turks were responsible for how they reacted to their fear, not the Armenians. But I do wonder: if we hadn’t been so intent on maintaining our ethnic and cultural integrity, if we had intermingled more with the Muslims and the Turks, maybe we wouldn’t have been so Other.

There’s no way to know, of course. And intermingling would have required the cooperation of the Muslims and Turks of the time as well: it’s a two-way street, not a one-way.

But what about those of us today? Not just Armenians, but all of us in our cultural or ethnic groups, who worry about losing our integrity by intermingling with the dominant culture? What about Quakers, who worry about losing our cultural integrity if we stop numbering the days of the week instead of using their normal names? What about LGBTQ folks who stick together in one big group where anyone S is made to feel uncomfortable or unwelcome? What about ethnic groups in the US who refuse to learn English to any degree past “Thank you”, etc., and instead go on speaking their native language? (And I’m not talking here about people in ethnic groups who speak their native language when they’re gathered together at family functions, but those who speak their native language all the time.)

Let’s go back to Quakers. What about our Quakerese? What about our sacred peculiarities?

There’s value in cultural integrity. I love being with my Armenian family at parties, hearing four languages (French, Arabic, Armenian, English), the music, the food, the dancing! I’m not in any way saying those things should be less valued or diminished.

What I am saying is that we need to reach out to each other. We need to reach out to people who consider us Other and invite them in, not by forcing them to learn our language, but by showing them our own culture in ways they can understand: why these things are important to us, what we love about our language and our customs.

Most of all, we need compassion for those who consider us Other and whose lives are ruled by fear. We need a great deal of compassion for those who persecute us because they are afraid. And we need to recognize that we have a responsibility to those people, that it is just as much our job to make them unafraid of us as it is theirs. And, of course, we need to be aware of those Others we are afraid of, and reach out to them as well.

“Love your enemies. Pray for those who persecute you.”

He wasn’t kidding.

More FUM...

I participated in a Monthly Meeting dialog yesterday morning. This MM, like so many others that have a dual affiliation with FGC and FUM, are trying to discern whether to recommend withholding past dues to FUM. This is such a hard issue, as it seems to touch on so many things; past, present, future, faith, individuals, hurt, anger, love, fear, change, resistance to change, fellowship, hope, despair, just to name a few. Clearly, the FUM policy of not hiring people in glbt in relationships (or any non-traditional marriage) is one that increasingly is out of step with the way society is moving, but it is not yet out of the mainstream of society; sadly, but in fact it is perhaps more in step with society than not.

Some of my thoughts and afterthoughts:

• Many corporations, organizations, and institutions have changed and are changing their cultures and policies around glbt issues not as a result of people leaving, but as a result of people staying and being honest. At religious institutions and in faith communities throughout the country, glbt people and their families/friends have stated that their affinity to their faith is strong, and they are staying while working to change the policies. What is clearly happening is the culture is changing; the institutions are often the last to follow, but I believe will do so. Even at places like BYU, policies are changing (last March, the policy was revised so that gays and lesbians are not expelled for merely identifying as such, although pre-marital sex will get any student expelled).
• The era of identity politics seems to be coming to a close, as was mentioned by a colleague yesterday (the changing policy at BYU is a reflection of this).
• Sanctions in general do not work, other than to hurt the poor and disenfranchised. If we are to walk away from FUM, who will be there to provide witness for each other, and for the glbt youth that remain?
• We are meant to struggle, and I believe that struggles of this type nurture the soul. They can help with healing, but not fixing. The FUM policy is as much triggering old hurts in people as it is causing these hurts, and I think this is an important distinction.
• The FUM policy is not a change in policy, but perhaps more a reaction to a change in society. It takes time. When I was coming out, I was reminded to give others time to adjust.
• What we are talking about in many cases is belief systems, and I mean beyond institutional belief systems and include personal beliefs about self/other.

As we search for clarity on this issue, some questions emerged, to me at least:

• How do we tend to the immediate needs and hurts of our members while being aware that we also want to do what we can to end the hurt for future generations?
• We are a faith community. Can we take a leap of faith that in staying within the FUM community, we all might change for the better?
• How can this meeting, and all meetings struggling with this issue, find a way to be clear that it is accepting of all people, while being able to engage and even financially support those with whom it disagrees on some issues? I think my home Meeting in Downers Grove did a good job of this; I never once felt unwelcomed (well, once, really, when a woman felt I should not be washing dishes because I have HIV, but she soon left). The challenge is that some times, no matter what we do, people will never feel fully safe.

I'm sure there is more to come.