A welcome sign


This note from the girlchild greeted me on the dining table when I walked in the door last night, just after sunset. I was gone four days and three nights, far far away.

“I LOVE YOO BABA AND I OLSO WIHC YOO WR HER.” Or, to the trained eye: “I love you Baba and I also wish you were here.”

More travelogue to follow, after my kissey lips and my huggey arms have caught up with their several days’ kid deficit. I swear their vocabulary doubled and their limbs are twice as long since last I had a good bead on ’em Thursday morning. They grow up so fast.

Star light, star bright


An ordinary ending to a day which began as many probably do, for many people, all over the world. Meaning, with the breathtakingly unexpected.  

As I watch my daughter dance after dinner to  Swan Lake, (here, Suite 4: Scene (White Swan), I know (again) how profoundly fortunate I am for the existence of her, of her brother, and of my beloved. Likewise I know they are fortunate for my continued existence.  I don’t tend to think my continued existence is predicated on a great deal more than chance.  But for that, so far, I am thankful.  There but for the grace of God.

The camera body and the lens I took this picture with are both on loan from a dear friend, who herself received them from a dear friend who had died of cancer with six short months’ notice.  Many get far less notice than that.  

Every day I look through Barbara’s lens at my children, and now (’til mine is fixed) I am holding Barbara’s body, too.  I have no idea what to do with that fact, but the symbolism is not lost on me.  At the very least, I try to appreciate the gift.  And what it reminds me of.  

After attending Barbara’s memorial, I wrote:

 I realize that death is, at the very least, camped out in a van across the street, eating donuts and sipping cheap coffee. More likely it’s sitting quietly in every room of the house, discreetly reading the paper, looking up from time to time to cast a watchful eye on the proceedings. Waiting for whomever, whenever.

This realization doesn’t make me more lugubrious. It makes me more loving. I don’t feel morbid; just mindful. And grateful.

Tonight, as I was tucking in my daughter, I added a new twist to the rhetorical question I constantly ask the kids.  

“How much do I love you?” I ask her.

“Sooooooo much,” she answers.  

“And how long will I love you?”

She pauses only as long as it takes for her eye to twinkle. “Forever!”

And I nod long and slow and serious. 

“Will you still remember me when you’re a star, Baba?”

And I nod again, long and slow, and also smile. “Absolutely.”  Which is the God’s honest truth. I know this for a fact.

She asks me how I know, and I tell her. “My mother lets me know,” I say. (“How?”) “I hear her here” — I touch my fingers to my temple — “and feel her here” — and I touch my palm to my heart.

Her eyes twinkle again, and she smiles wide, and says, “You’ll be the first star I see at night.”

It is hypothetical/magical to her, I imagine. Not so to me.  I continue to smile, and nod long and slow. One day, that star — the one which was once my mother to me, then my nephew; the one which to my daughter is our dear old dog, now gone — one day, that star will be me.  I try in my ways to prepare her, her brother, and my beloved for the breathtakingly unexpected (a task which forgetfulness makes Sisyphean). All I can really hope for, as Mary Oliver writes, is this:

When it’s over, I want to say: all my life I was
a bride married to amazement.
I was the bridegroom, taking the world into my arms.” 


Flash! Church and state are supposed to be separate!

Another bulletin for the “More grist for the mill” file.  The National Organization for MisinformationMarriage has amplified their claim that marriage equality somehow quashes, instead of clears the path for, true religious freedom.  Gotta fix that. Pro marriage equality churches CANNOT LEGALLY WED WHO THEY WANT TO when same-sex marriage is outlawed.  That, folks, is a limit on the free exercise of  religious freedom.  How many churches might those be? Read on! [later note, heaping on yet more grist for the mill: a Religion Dispatches article of May 5 (via AlterNet) notes rising secularist numbers: “40  Million Nonbelievers in America? The Secret is Almost Out”]

This gay marriage = religious freedom argument was floating around in my head for a while (probably since I got trained for election day No on 8 work at a United Church of Christ church, or was fed election-day donuts there).  But it did not become vivid until I saw Rob Tish’s crisp, concise video presentation of the argument that  “Gay Marriage = Religious Freedom.”  If you haven’t seen it yet, do: you won’t be disappointed.  (Those of you who are reading this post in a reader aren’t party to the feverish happenings in this blog’s sidebar; some do read it in situ, but might not have seen: I it posted it in my “Selected Videos” slot in the sidebar a week or two back.)  Here you go:


The short version of the above: (1) Each argument that religious freedoms would be limited by marriage equality? False, proved so by a point-by-point examination of them (for further corroboration, consider five years’ experience in Massachusetts, testified to by clergy).  Faiths that do not recognize or support same-sex marriage are free to continue to not marry members of the same sex.  And (2) Pro-marriage equality churches cannot marry who their faith tells them they should when same-sex marriage is outlawed.  That is the limit on religious freedom.

Courage Campaign  just released a citizen-made video reiterating the same point: the separation of church and state protects religious freedom; marriage equality and religious freedom are not in conflict.

And in “Same Sex Marriage is Inevitable,” a commentary earlier this week at Forbes.com, pollster Bernard Whitman reminds readers,

Religions have plenty of prohibitions against actions that are perfectly legal in our society, including working on the Sabbath, eating shellfish, drinking alcohol or coffee or celebrating Halloween. Would anyone think to suggest that these activities be prevented by law simply because some people’s religions are opposed? Of course not.

He goes on to reiterate the breathtakingly overlooked fact that marriages conducted in a church, synagogue, or mosque are only legally recognized by the state because the officiant has  been recognized by the state, and this person files paperwork with the state on behalf of the couple, if the couple doesn’t do this directly. Whitman:

And while religions certainly have rules that married couples are supposed to follow, it is the state that decides who may get married and who may not, when marriages begin and end, and what rights, benefits and privileges are awarded to married people.

I note these things not so much because I think any of you highly astute LD readers are laboring under essential misconceptions about such matters, but to provide you a bit more material from which to draw as you have your various water-cooler/ dinner table conversations with friends, colleagues, and family members.  Since that’s how this whole shebang is going to move.

And generally speaking, anyone watching the polling these days  knows that movement on this topic is actually coming along at a rapid clip.  Both the Washington Post/ABC and the New York Times/CBS have recently released polls showing sharp upticks of support for gay marriage:  The Post/ABC poll just asked pro/con for same sex marraige, and came up: 49% for, 46% against.  Got that? More for than against. (ABC coverage on it, with graph, here.) The NYT/CBS poll factored in support for civil unions as well, and still came up with more for gay marriage than any other option: Times/CBS: 42% for same-sex marriage, 25% for civil unions, 28% for no legal recognition.

Seeing Rob Tish’s video a few weeks back got my own curiosity about pro-marriage equality churches to its logical next step, and I rooted around for more numbers.  I haven’t yet turned up a head count of US congregations, but The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life reported on various denominations’ positions on same sex marriage in May of 2008. I’ve poured a synopsis of it in a home-spun table, below; for more info do look at the report itself, since it provides links to each of the denominations’ own publications on the topic.  [Full disclosure: I am a heathen (okay, okay; I’m a Buddhist) and do not pretend to a more nuanced command of the topic than I found on this Pew overview. I know a couple of you LD readers are lesbian clergy  (yay!) and Jewish scholars (yay!), and may be inspired to focus this picture even further for interested readers. Plus there’s this “Learn More” section of Freedom to Marry’s “Why Marriage Matters to Religious People and Communities” page.] 

By my count, out of all these denominations, only around half are explicitly anti-gay marriage. The rest are either for it, or not explicitly against it, or even, in several cases, in the throes of significant internal turmoil over an evolving redefinition of their position.  I could add up the numbers of congregants in these open and affirming (or at least not clearly closed and denouncing) denominations, but what would that matter? Isn’t protection of religious minorities one of the bedrock tenets of this nation?


denomination  current views on same-sex marriage: pro/?/con
American Baptist con: 1992 General Board declared “homosexuality incompatible with Christian teaching,” but in 2006 churches in CA, HI, NV, & AZ broke with the nat’l church in reaction to the General Board’s failure to penalize churches that welcomed openly gay members
Buddhism ?:  no official position, depends on cultural attitudes; but an overwhelming majority of American Buddists (82%, second only to “Other Faiths” and only just ahead of Jews, at 79%) believe homosexuality “should be accepted by society”
Catholicism con:  US Conference of Catholic Bishops oppose gay marriage
Episcopal Church ?:  church not explicitly in favor, but in 2006 stated “support of gay and lesbian persons and [opposition to] any state or federal constitutional amendment that prohibits same-sex marriages or unions,” Bishop Gene Robinson first openly gay bishop *
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America  con:  its legislative body, the Churchwide Assembly, is currently studying the issue and is expected to present official position on the ordination of openly gay ministers and same-sex marriage sometime this year; currently defines marriage as between a man & a woman [see also this  add’l info from commenter theredbaron and this add’l info from commenter Sarah]
Hinduism ?:  no official position; depends on cultural attitudes; however just 48% felt homosexuality should be accepted by society, and 37% thought it should be discouraged
Islam con:  Islamic law explicitly denounces homosexuality; same-sex marriage prohibited, only disagreement is severity of punishment
Judaism largely pro: both Reform and Reconstructionist mov’ts support LGBT rights, including the right of same-sex couples to wed; Conservative mov’t does not sanctify gay marriage but does grant rabbis the autonomy to choose whether or not to perform ceremonies; Orthodox Judaism defines marriage as between man & woman & therefore does not allow for same-sex marriage
Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod con:  in 2006 reaffirmed position that same-sex marriage is “contrary to the will of the Creator”
Mormonism con:  theology mandates that “marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God” & as a result, LDS does not endorse same-sex marriage
National Ass’n of Evangelicals con:  in 2004 reaffirmed its 1985 resolution that homosexuality is not sanctioned by the Bible and thus does not support gay marriage or civil unions
National Council of Churches ?:  no official position due to diverse theological teachings among its member churches
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) con/?:  governing body, the General Assembly, has not explicitly addressed issue, but in 1997 issued a ruling prohibiting the ordination of homosexuals; regional synods and clergy have challenged this ruling, causing a major rift among Presbyterians *
Southern Baptist Convention con:  in 2003 issued a statement confirming its opposition to gay marriage
Unitarian Universalist Ass’n of Congregations  pro:  in 1996 passed a resolution in support of same sex marriage
United Church of Christ pro:  in 2005 the General Synod of the UCC voted to legally recognize and advocate in favor of same-sex marriage
United Methodist Church con:  in 2004 the General Conference of the UMC reaffirmed that marriage is between a man & a woman & does not sanction civil unions *

 [Data for the above table adapted from The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life’s Special Report: The Same-Sex Marriage Debate — Religious Groups’ Official Positions on Same-Sex Marriage, revised May 20, 2008.]

* B.A. Robinson notes, In “The Episcopal Church, USA and homosexuality” at Religious Tolerance.org, that “the Episcopal Church (USA), along with the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the United Methodist Church are probably experiencing the greatest amount of conflict over the questions of equal rights for their gay and lesbian members.” 

If you’re still reading this lengthy, patchwork post, you may be wondering: What specific good works are afoot right now to strengthen and support the work of these open and affirming congregations, since the California Supreme Court decision on Proposition 8 is going to hit us like a big huge smelly fish in the face (!) any week now? 

Reader, wonder no more! Equality California’s Coalitions Coordinator Andrea Shorter (score, EQCA!) has been hard at work fostering discussion among various faith leaders, and in “In Good Faith: Moving Towards Marriage Equality,” a post today at Equality California’s blog, Shorter conveys some of that dialog.  It’s rich, and very heartening.  Go read it.  And if you’re local to the San Francisco Bay Area, know that the Bay Area Coalition of Welcoming Congregations is engaged as you read these very words in planning a concerted response to the court’s decision (dates and locations here).

Alrighty then!  Enough words for one post, and, as I’ll clarify tomorrow, for one month. Thanks for reading. To you, and to myself, I say: Stay calm and carry on.

Out of the pens of babes

My first thought was: Should I be worried?  A friend who’s a mental health professional says, No. Says I should be more worried if she’s drawing faces with no mouth, or no eyes, etc. Weelllllll, okay, I says, marginally convinced.

I put it to the lil’ monkey.

Baba: Wow, sweetie, that’s quite a drawing. Can you tell me what you see here?

Punky monkey: You tell me. [Where the hell does she get that, little smartass. Ooop! Moi.]

B: They look sad to me.  Or angry.  How did you feel when you were drawing this?  Were you upset?

M: No.  This one is silly [points to upper left one, sans eyebrows].  The rest of them are angry.

B: So these are angry people.

M: Yep.  Silly, angry people.