20 Questions cont. Our fear of the...

www.caffection.com
www.burnthebaggage.com

Today, a bit of a diversion, but indirectly related to the topic at hand--change in society, and our fear of it. Here's my take on this all too human tendency. If nothing else, this offers a fresh perspective on a disease that has plagued humankind since ancient days: Fear of the dark, the strange, the different. It's said that the primary emotion isn't love, or hunger, or even curiosity, but fear. Without fear and its instinctual protective reaction, none of us would be here. Our species would not have survived the harsh, cold, dangerous early years of our propagation of the planet.
These are different times. Many still believe, some with quite convincing arguments, that we're afraid of the darkness because of its unknown, sinister definitions and depths that trigger some atavistic flight response. This may be true on a cellular, primitive level. But in this advanced, sophisticated level of modern social interaction the opposite appears to be true. We retreat from our own inner convictions when in a gathering of our peers. The reason has nothing to do with darkness. Indeed, if in the same social situation one of our peers were to confess to ignorance of an issue, we'd relish the opportunity to educate them, to shed light on their darkness. But, in the same crowd, if someone stated an obviously flawed opinion about something we feel particularly well versed in, we're reluctant to advance our own opinion, preferring instead to allow darkness to prevail.
The reason we do this is not to avoid hurt feelings; we're afraid of our own power. Afraid of the power of our own light! We know what our own truth is, and we're terrified of it. Unlike our ancient forebears, we're afraid of the light.
Ironically, this fear extends from our earliest reckonings and reasoning, from childhood, when we were truly unafraid to say what we felt and meant, before society had instilled in us a damper to shade our shining inner guide.
It's instructive that a newborn's first reaction is based in fear, and that fear reaction is caused by the infant's first exposure to light. Despite the calm atmosphere of the delivery room, the hushed tones, and calm serenity of the surroundings, the warm, inviting ambiance, we enter the world blinded by the light. We react to it with predictable terror, cringing, crying, attempting to protect ourselves from its demanding presence. This fear of light persists. There's a medical condition called light phobia. But I refer to a different fear of light, one that lasts from birth to eulogy.
We're afraid of the awesome power we possess from the day we're born, the ability to use the light inside of us to make change happen in the world. The ability inherent in everyone to turn the world, to bend the arc of history toward justice and truth, to dance with the light. Think of it: What if an infant were to avoid the social proscriptions that reward the perpetuation of darker motivations and was allowed--encouraged--to promote the light living inside? What if that child was never told, and never learned, of the darkness? What if from childhood we were allowed to proceed with our inner truth, the 'gut feeling' we knew was right, to go forward trusting the light we felt glowing within? What if we were allowed to grow, unaware of the dangers inherent in stating our truth full into the rushing wind? What if we were one of those rare individuals who proclaimed their truth regardless of the prospect of social censure or disdain, stating what we knew in our power to be true? Names of these individuals stand out in history--Christ, Galileo, Paine, Jefferson, Mandela, King, Rosa Parks--What if, like them, we weren't afraid of the light?
We need as adults to reach back to our childhood, and to learn once again to touch the power we know is there, the light we know we're capable of sending forth into our world. There's ample need for it now. Amelia Earhart once said "Courage is the price that life exacts for granting peace."
Let's bend the arc of history once more; let's shed our considerable light on the rights of all, and we'll be assured that life can and will grant us that peace.

20 Questions cont.

www.caffection.com
www.burnthebaggage.com

Q: What if a couple of gays demand that my church marry them or they'll sue us?
A: No flip or casual response to this today, because people in certain congregations truly believe this will happen when marriage equality becomes reality. People tend to be quite proprietary about their church, their one sanctuary in modern life, like the couple above shielded by their church and its comforting embrace. This makes perfect sense. It's terrifically satisfying to know that we live in a country that respects the right of others to worship as they see fit. There are only a handful of countries that do. As I write this, we're engaged in a bloody struggle in not one but two countries that do not, which is why those conflicts are still ongoing, and why they're so vicious. And herein lies the answer to today's question.
The distinct wall that separates church and governmental affairs in America is what sets us so far apart from less secular nations. This is a very good thing. In distant memory, those who founded this country came here by and large to escape the kind of religious persecution and conflict that characterizes those other places. We dare not lose sight of that. Any time a congregation attempts to impose its will on the rest of us, to intrude into the affairs of state, we need to promptly and efficiently remind each other that this is not who we are; that in America no religious affiliation is recognized or protected by the government, and all of them are.
The other side of this is equally simple, and equally just: no church in America need fear the intrusion of state into its sanctuary. Any time a state entity makes an effort to compel a church toward one or the other ideology or practice, we must vigorously and quickly rush in to eliminate that threat to church sovereignty. In simple terms, just as we don't need religious documents to obtain any sort of governmental authorization--drivers license, zoning permit, tax stamp,civil marriage license, what have you--we don't need a governmental document to obtain church release--baptismal certificate, wedding papers, bingo license etc. etc. Notice I included wedding papers in that mix. This is not a typo; this is acknowledgment of the legal and civil realities of modern marriage. Ask any 100 people who married them, and they will invariably say Father O'Brien, or Rabbi Schultz, or their pastor at the Baptist church. Here's where the distinction must be made, a differentiation that helps to clear the haze that causes so much anxiety in church groups when discussing marriage equality.
The simple fact is that, in spite of what they may believe, Father O'Brien, Rabbi Schultz et al did not marry them. The state (Ohio, Montana, New York, Oregon etc.) married them. Their Pastor/Minister/Rabbi/Priest performed their wedding ceremony. Without their state sanctioned, purchased and printed civil marriage license their religious leaders could only provide them a wedding rite, not a legally recognized civil marriage. And here's where the wall of separation is most distinct, and most durable: no state may (or will) dictate what that wedding ceremony consists of, how long it lasts, what it must include, or, and this is critical, who it may include. No state may or will dictate which people must be wed inside that sanctuary. In spite of what certain pastors etc. may say, this cannot happen.
So what are we left with today? Here's a scenario that likely happens every day in America, one that ought to debunk the argument that churches will be required to marry LGBT people. Imagine a heterosexual couple, both of whom are atheists. No religious affiliation whatever, because they don't believe in 'that hocus pocus'. Happens every day. If those two non-believers arrive at the courthouse to obtain a civil marriage license, the clerk must provide them one. All things being equal--the couple is old enough, not 1st cousins, they're sane, and not already married to someone else--the state has NO choice but to issue the license.
However, if that couple of non-believers takes their state-issued civil marriage license to the local pastor and demands that he or she perform a wedding ceremony? That pastor can turn them away, and likely will. And the state has no authority or interest in forcing that wedding. None. Once that church door slams shut it is sealed, and no state entity can pry it open. Is that not a great feeling? Only in America. Let's keep it that way. It works for everyone.
Tomorrow--a diversion for a related piece examining our fear of...the light (!)
P.S. The extra URL today is a link to a new venture designed to help people turn their negatives to positives. Check it out. Thanks

20 Questions cont.

www.caffection.com

Q: Why should I give a flip about same-gender marriage?
A: The snarky response is that you shouldn't. You're right; why should you care what anyone else is doing in their personal life? Isn't that the ultimate luxury of calling ourselves Americans? That we can proceed with our lives unconcerned about what anyone else thinks as long as we're not breaking the law, causing too much public nuisance, holding up the line at Starbucks, or even what we do with our sex lives as long as we don't frighten the horses. Who cares? If someone else snoops too much, we have a canned response--"get a life"
Okay, so here's why you should care about same-gender marriage, and why we do.
The obvious reason, even though most Americans are oblivious to it because we're allowed to be, is that restricting civil marriage to heterosexuals is blatant discrimination, and we're a nation that prides itself on rooting that out and erasing it. We're not naive enough to think this is a collective effort. Far from it. There are entrenched interest groups that want nothing more than the status quo, and they have lots of money and a solid organization. But looking back at numerous civil and human rights efforts we all feel better, act better, make more progress and benefit from the inclusion of yet one more oppressed segment into the larger fabric of our crazy-quilt society. Bertrand Russel said there are 3 stages to every social change: the first stage is ridicule, the second is violent opposition, and the third is acceptance as common wisdom. Same gender marriage is just such a social change. Ten years from now no one will bat an eyelash at the everyday nature of LGBT people obtaining civil marriage licenses and getting married. Ho-Hum. Who cares, as we said initially. The sky will not fall. There will be no dark and stormy night. Cows will still give milk. The sun will still rise in the east. Life will go on.
Why we care so much about this issue is simply that we want everyone to have a relationship with the person they love and adore that is similar to what we have, and that includes LGBT people. Civil marriage must be available to all who choose it, because marriage itself needs to be elevated in the public mind. The last thing marriage needs is a profusion of different definitions and alternatives, so-called 'marriage-lite' options. By including all who desire civil marriage, society sends a clear signal--if you want the protections, benefits, rights and responsibilities of marriage--get married! As for the LGBT community, civil marriage would elevate their status in society to the ho-hum category mentioned above, so a very good thing, and it would function to attach many if not most of the rights and benefits sought through a long and exhausting human rights struggle for them.
The other reason we promote civil marriage for all has little to do with LGBT people. It concerns marriage itself, and why we believe it needs more ink. Marriage is simply the glue that holds people together, creating families, concentrating resources for care & education of kids, stabilizing financial resources, increasing margins of safety in society, taming otherwise random male impulses--yes, sexual adventurism as well--and in general strengthening communities. This is a good thing. The danger marriage faces today comes not from those who desperately want it; it comes from those who already have it--the ravages to civil marriage from we heterosexual couples who divorce when the wind changes direction. Useful as a statistic or not, it needs to be said that Massachusetts, where marriage equality has been reality since 2004 has the lowest divorce rate in the nation. Whether reinforced by LGBT people or not, the trend there is a good one.
We all need to look at this issue objectively as the conservative rallying point it truly is. If conservatives truly want self-empowerment, responsibility, personal motivation this is their issue.
Tomorrow--why churches believe they need protection--and why they don't.

20 Questions cont.

www.caffection.com

Q: Why do gays have to act that way in public? It gives me the creeps.
A: God forbid any of us should feel like we can be ourselves in public. It's downright unAmerican. And thank God, too, that straights never act up in public places.
This is an old anti-gay statement that really means why don't they just disappear so we never have to deal with them. It's similar to yesterday's question about sensibilities. And it reflects on the critical issue that stands between the LGBT community and full recognition: Acceptance by the larger community that gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people actually exist! It's true--LGBT people are all around us, in church, in the grocery, delivering our mail, driving the UPS truck, directing traffic, fighting fires, banging gavels, kicking footballs, slugging home runs, and yes, even serving in the military. It's been true since time out of mind that only when a minority group's visibility is raised in society do they gain full human rights. Until then there has always been an odd, kind of paternalistic sense that the rest of us feel that dismisses their needs, desires and very humanity because we're uncomfortable with their 'acting out in public'. There is also, and always has been a sense in this Christian nation of ours, a collective embarrassment at witnessing someone enjoying life too much. The Puritans are alive and well, they just don't look like it.
Tomorrow--why you should give a &$@# about same-gender marriage--and why we do. Stay tuned.

20 Questions cont.

www.caffection.com

Today's commentary on same-gender marriage, and the objection to it: "I'm against it, because it's just too weird, and I don't like it."
A: Well, we certainly wouldn't want people to be uncomfortable, so let's just forget basic equality for everyone and deny that some lack those rights. Perhaps they'll just make nice and go away.
Here's the mini-drama that may illustrate the point:
You're driving around looking for a new home, and you see a property that just blows you away. It has everything you ever wanted--location, charm, stability, neighborhood, schools, easy access, the whole thing. You simply fall in love with this house, so you call the realtor® who arranges a showing. You get inside, and the house is even more beautiful and charming than you imagined. You have to have this house. So you put an offer on it, and the agent calls two days later with the happy news: the seller has accepted! You're on cloud nine. You go to the bank, the loan goes through, you pack up and get ready to close on your dream home. You can't imagine your good fortune.
A week before the closing your agent calls with the following conversation--
"Uh, I'm really sorry, but the deal fell through"
"What? I can't believe it. Everything was set, the seller accepted, the loan, everything!" Your heart is broken. You see your dream crashing around you. "Why?" you say. "What happened?"
"Well," the agent says. "The neighbors saw you in the yard, and, well, they're uncomfortable having you next door. But we'll find you another house, I promise. It's no big deal."
No big deal? You're heartbroken. The real irritation is that the comfort level of the neighbors has shattered your dream, as if that mattered.
This is exactly what happens when two of our gay & lesbian friends meet, fall in love, and desire to marry. The comfort level of the straight community bars them from the neighborhood. Fair? No, but ongoing, and consistent.
The moral of the story is that we all need to step back from our own egos at times, make an effort to understand that there are about five billion other people on the planet (and counting), that it's not all about us, and go on. Plus, and this is critical, accepting other people and going on with our lives costs us nothing. It may cost them everything. Think about it.
Here's the rest of today's blog post. It's good reading, so please indulge me. (Byron)
Tuesday I'll be 61 years old. This fact still astonishes me, insofar as, cliche as it sounds, it happened so fast. I see the last handful of years I have left as a time to work harder than ever to make a difference. Part of that work is using my accumulated wisdom to tell what I've learned. Here's what I know after 60 years of listening, learning, staying alert to what's going on around me.
The world moves forward, not backward. There's no going back to the 'good old days' because for one they weren't so good, and two we can't. It hasn't been that long ago that kids worked in coal mines at twelve, blacks were assumed inferior, women weren't allowed to own property or vote, blacks & whites were prohibited from marrying, we casually referred to 'the different' as dehumanized, using words like nigger, spic, faggot, chink, gook, micks, you name it. So I'm optimistic that the world not only moves forward, but with every revolution there is truly a revolution in minds if not in hearts. That every spin of the dial brings us closer together, or at least presents us the opportunity to close the gap.
This, too, I know. The more we fear each other and assume negatives, the more reason we have to fear and assume negatives. Politics aside, we saw for 8 years how fear and suspicion create a diminished, regressive society, a cave mindset that finds its manifestation in the acquisition of weapons, the assumption of aggression by others, and a siege mentality in a zero-sum world. If the other wins, we lose, and vice-versa. But I know this, too. Like simple physics, what we attract into our lives surely comes and brings a guest. Imagine a magnet that repels iron. This is not what magnets do. So as naive and gullible as it sounds, I suggest we all assume the positive until we have reason otherwise; attract into your life that which you wish to be there, and it will come; lose sight of joy, and you cease to live; there's more wisdom in live and let live than any aphorism ever uttered; and finally this--only when everyone is free will any of us be truly free. Yesterday I had the great opportunity to spend an afternoon with four young people starting off on a first political campaign. They're simply wonderful, bright, alert, engaging, enthusiastic people who have a common vision: to make every spin of their world count toward a better tomorrow for other people. The parade was fun, but the discussion after was bracing. I'm encouraged. Turning 61 will easier for it. Thanks to Jay, Dan Katie, Eric et all in Medina.
Next--"Why do gays and lesbians have to act like that in public?" Stay tuned.