Posted on May 17, 2014 by SigoTratando
Re: Black Christian Pastors:
- “you are my enemy”
- “It’s time to take our nation back.”
- You can’t compare gay civil-rights struggles to black struggles
It suddenly occurred to me: “protecting beliefs” has no boundaries. If you think that marriage is only between male & female because your religious beliefs, that’s fine. If you also believe that the institution of marriage is established by your god; the U.S. is a Christian country; and that, therefore, laws should be Christian-based, it makes sense that you might think that in fighting the progression of same-sex marriage, you are “protecting your faith.”
But your faith is personal. And to extend it to the entire country is dominionist and, frankly, self-absorbed.
Those such as Pastor Roland Caldwell declare as “enemies of God” and therefore “my enemies” all those who believe their faith is about living the life of Christ, not trying to structure a nation to conform to their own beliefs. Their enemies are the same people who believe in fairness and equality for all tax-paying citizens of this same nation. To those self-righteous who arrogantly claim to know the mind of God with authority to name who His enemies are, I say you’ve overstepped or stepped over the living-by-example and grace-as-light foundation of the person whose name you have soiled, whose light you have tainted, whose Grace you have horrifically misrepresented.
Arrogating the -ism
When you talk about how gay struggles can’t be compared to black struggles, it’s hard to know when you have drifted from the context of slavery to the concept of racism. You use them interchangeably. Continue reading
Filed under: Politicality, Religiosity | Tagged: grace, marriage, religion | 2 Comments »
Posted on March 9, 2014 by SigoTratando
Have encountered some odd criticism of late: we must not have really wanted the right to get married or it doesn’t really mean all that much to us since we’ve postponed it for whatever reasons.
Here is my reply:
1) I also wanted the right to smoke mota, but because I now have that right doesn’t mean I’m hitting the first joint I can.
2) The right is a civil-rights issue, an evolution of society and a clarification of what it means to be upstanding, tax-paying citizens not beholden to others’ religious scruples or disapprobation of us as humans “created equal.”
3) But getting married is more than an issue of rights — it’s an matter of celebration and wanting to “do it right.” We *will* get married, but we’d like to pair that with other events (like a party and honey-moon), which make us feel like having the right is more than just legal recognition. It is as spiritual & emotional to us as it is to those who deny our spirituality and basic human characteristics of emotion related to love and loving.
4) After nearly 27 years, getting married for us would be like a renewal of our relationship, altering it significantly in the eyes of the law, but giving us the opportunity to retro-step, like going back and experiencing the prom you had missed in high school.
With the right to marry, why should we feel any more pressure or obligation to avail ourselves and enjoy the right than heterosexuals do? Why must we run out and make a political show of gratitude to society for recognizing us as humans and tax-paying citizens?
Filed under: Politicality | Tagged: marriage, romance | Leave a comment »