Tweet
Give a hearty coffeehouse welcome to Rev. Patrick S. Cheng, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at
Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The author of Radical Love: An Introduction to Queer Theology, he shares a year-end piece for discussion. –Pam
The Truth Will Make Us Free: A Queer Year in Review
By Rev. Patrick S. Cheng, Ph.D.
Follow on Twitter @patrickschengAnti-gay Christians love to quote John 8:32, which says that “the truth will make you free.” According to them, if only lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people would simply accept the truths of the Christian faith, we would discover the error of our ways, repent of our sins and miraculously change our misdirected sexual orientations and/or gender identities.
As an openly-gay theologian, ordained Christian minister and seminary professor at the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, I agree that the truth will make us free. However, the anti-gay Christians have it backwards. As the groundbreaking events of 2010 have demonstrated, it is actually the truth of the fundamental goodness of LGBT people and our lives that will make us free. Ironically, this truth also will free anti-gay Christians of their own heterosexist prejudices and theological blind spots.
What were some of the truths about the goodness of LGBT people and our lives that were demonstrated in 2010? In August, the first fully-litigated U.S. federal court trial about same-sex marriage concluded that there was no rational basis for prohibiting LGBT people from entering into civil marriage. The trial court struck down California Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot initiative that stripped LGBT people in California of the right to marry. Judge Vaughn R. Walker’s ruling demonstrated the truth that LGBT civil marriages are grounded in the same ethical values of love, mutual caring and commitment as non-LGBT civil marriages.
In September, after a rash of horrific suicides by young gay men across the United States, the openly-gay author and syndicated columnist Dan Savage and his husband Terry Miller started the “It Gets Better Project.” This project has resulted in more than 5,000 Internet videos of LGBT people and our allies, speaking directly — and giving hope — to suffering LGBT young people around the world. Each video tells the truth about how even though many of us suffered at the hands of bullies and bigots while growing up, our lives ultimately have become better in the process of coming out and speaking the truth about our lives to the world.
More below the fold.
In December, the U.S. Congress authorized — and President Obama signed into law — the repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell statute that had prohibited openly lesbian and gay soldiers from serving in the U.S. military for the past 17 years. The repeal was based upon overwhelming evidence that allowing lesbians and gays to serve openly in the military would have no adverse consequences to national security. In fact, the evidence showed that encouraging truth telling by lesbian and gay soldiers would actually enhance the effectiveness of our armed forces. As most of us learned from an early age, telling the truth is a virtue and not a vice.There were a number of other encouraging examples in 2010 of speaking the truth about LGBT people. For example, in September a Florida state court struck down an anti-gay statute that expressly prohibited LGBT people from adopting children in that state. Shortly thereafter, the Florida Department of Children and Families declined to appeal the decision, thus conceding the truth of that ruling.
In December, the United Nations spoke the truth by voting to protect LGBT people around the world from extrajudicial killings and arbitrary executions, notwithstanding the strenuous objections of a number of member countries. Even Pope Benedict XVI, in a recent book-length interview with a German journalist, took a first step toward speaking the truth about LGBT people by saying that the intentional use of condoms by a male prostitute to prevent HIV/AIDS infection could be the “first step in the direction of moralization.”
Interestingly, anti-gay Christians love to cite over and over again the half-dozen or so verses in the Bible that purportedly condemn same-sex acts as sinful. However, they ignore the nearly 200 verses in the Bible that emphasize the importance of truth-telling from a theological and ethical perspective, not to mention the explicit prohibition of bearing false witness against one’s neighbors in the Ten Commandments.
These anti-gay Christians would do better to heed the stern biblical warnings against bearing false witness. Recently, the venerable Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) officially designated 13 anti-gay Christian groups — including the American Family Association, the Family Research Council and the Traditional Values Coalition — as “hate groups” for spreading “known falsehoods” against LGBT people. Another five groups — including the Concerned Women for America, Liberty Counsel and the National Organization for Marriage — were cited for their use of “demonizing propaganda” against sexual minorities on the SPLC’s website.
Anti-gay Christians, including those who are affiliated with the above groups mentioned by the SPLC, would do well to read more closely the first chapter of letter of St. Paul to the Romans. In particular, they should read Romans 1 as applying to themselves. Often that chapter is used solely as “proof” of the sinfulness of LGBT people. What anti-gay Christians seem to forget, however, is the traditional doctrine of original sin, as articulated in Romans and interpreted by theologians such as Augustine of Hippo onwards, applies to all people — including themselves!
What if the warning of Romans 1:18-21 against the “ungodliness” and “wickedness” of those who “suppress the truth” — and those whose “senseless minds” are “darkened” — actually referred to those anti-gay Christians who fail to acknowledge the truth and empirical evidence about the fundamental goodness and loving nature of LGBT people and our relationships?
What if the “lusts,” “impurity” and “degrading” actions (including “exchanging the truth about God for a lie”) as described in Romans 1:24-25 actually referred to the lust for political power, wealth and idolatrous self-worship as exhibited by many anti-gay Christians, some of whom scapegoat LGBT people as a convenient way of diverting attention from their own sexual sins?
What if the condemnation of the “shameless acts” committed with “one another” and the “debased mind” described by St. Paul in Romans 1:27-28 actually referred to the brutal gang rape (metaphorically speaking) of LGBT people by anti-gay Christian hate speech – hate speech that has resulted in numerous queer bashings and suicides by LGBT people, including innocent young people whose lives were tragically cut off before reaching their prime?
Although admirable progress was made during 2010 with respect to basic human rights for LGBT people, much more needs to be done. In particular, the rise of state-sanctioned anti-LGBT violence in other parts of the world, including the Middle East, Asia and Africa, is frightening. For example, the upcoming vote by the Uganda legislature on its “kill-the-gays” legislation is one example of this state-sanctioned violence that must be condemned by people of faith everywhere.
As LGBT people, we must remain ever vigilant and hopeful that the truth of the fundamental goodness, and holiness, of our lives and relationships will free us from the sinful bondage of homophobic and heterosexist oppression. However, LGBT people are not the only ones who will benefit from this truth. The truth will also free anti-gay Christians from their own heterosexist prejudices and theological blind spots — shortcomings that would otherwise prevent them from entering fully into the reign of God.
Other year-ender items to click over to:
* Truth Wins Out – Year in Review — LGBT Top 10
* Michigan Messenger – Year in Review: LGBT issues figure prominently in 2010
* Ranker – Top 10 People Out of the Closet in 2010
13 Comments
TAX THE CHURCH!
?
I guess I missed that case.
I was following Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which (rightfully) has no connection to trans-anything and in whose documents (from pleadings to briefs and on through the trial court opinion) one can barely find mention of anything remotely trans, and most of those involve the listing of amicus-filing organizations that have trans-something in their names or mission statements.
I’m glad I’m not licensed to practice law in Florida, because I know nothing about that statute or it being overturned, and I might have been subject to malpractice for not knowing about it.
I am, however, familiar with this Florida law:
That law did not prohibit transsexuals from adopting, and, theoretically, the court decision which got rid of that law does nothing to prevent the FLorida Legislature from adopting a law specifically prohibiting transsexuals from adopting.
I guess I missed that one too. I was too busy reading about this one:
Unless a delegation from the sovereign nation of Minnesota was responsible for authoring the definition of “sexual orientation,” that phrase is as devoid of trans-significance to the U.N. as it is to New York, Massachusetts, et. al.
Meanwhile, the chains of ignorance of and/or indifference toward the difference between “gay” and “LGBT” will drag the unprotected among us down.
The sound you hear is Kat hitting the non-existent ‘like’ button
This.Before I started following the Blend, I wouldn’t even have noticed these, but now it’s rather glaring.
I agree and don’t agreeI agree that he keeps lumping in T when it would appear he’s really only talking about LGB. The danger in this is that people not paying attention might assume that legal challenges for Ts are being addressed like they are for LGBs, which we know it isn’t the case.
I disagree that no Ts have benefitted from the legal changes he mentions. Ts are sometimes in same-sex relationships before, during or after transitioning, and so are vulnerable to homophobic laws about housing, marriage, adoption etc and therefore do concretely benefit from LGB advances. But of course straight Ts only benefit from LGB laws to the degree that people mistakenly categorize them as LGB and the basis of the discrimination isn’t their T-ness per se.
In some places like Washington state, “sexual orientation” is legally defined to include gender identity and expression so that the law itself conflates and covers everyone in the LGBT acronym. So be careful, because sometimes it is technically correct to refer to a law based on sexual orientation as an “LGBT law”.
So I’m not arguing with you here – I think people need to be careful with their language so that we don’t set up a false sense of progress in legal protections for T people, but I also think that it is important to acknowledge that the situation isn’t always cut and dried LGB v. T.
Please note the reference to Minnesota
And unless it is specifically defined to include trans, it does not include trans and will not be interpreted as including trans. Washington is one of those that has a good definition of it, as is Minnesota and a few others.
And I agree – though I’m even more concerned with the flipside: of gay losses (such as, unfortunately, is probably going to happen ultimately with the California case) being sloppily described as ‘LGBT’ when, in reality, under California law (and all other states that have statutes allowing for recognition of change of sex) transition recognition is wholly separate from marriage law.
I’d be content if he just logged on to LEXIS for a few minutes
I agree.I think I’m finally coming around. The more I read comments like yours, the more I realize the T has no place with the LGB. It really should come off. Keep up the good work.
I agree.Any year end list that doesn’t include this…….
is deficient. The nerve of this guy for not finding every last scrap of good news, huh?
Sounds good to me. Time for HRC to stop spending money on anything gay and be exclusively T to make up for 3 decades of deceit
Well…For the ‘gay bourgeoisie‘ who neither need nor want anti-discrimination laws for themselves because they think that their class status has substantive legal strength (and, truth be told, they don’t really want any for anyone else becaue it could cut into their ability to freely indulge in their ‘discriminating tastes’), inclusion in a federal non-discrimination law is less than a scrap; its a piece of garbage that should be thrown away.
Perhaps you just forgot to credit the actual author of your words?Let me help. Your post was taken from a book review, Egyptian Idol, written by Lorraine Adams.
I was thinking it sounded like a possible good read and found that that the Chicago Public Library has a copy I might check out. Then I read the rest of the article which ends:
So I put in a request for that biography instead. Thanks for the tip, whatever your intention!
For those who wonder what she sounded like, you can find numerous clips of Om Kalthoum (under various transliterations of her name) on YouTube. She was a rock star before there were rock stars. I also recommend a documentary which explains her to a Western audience and places her politically in her times, Umm Kulthum: A Voice Like Egypt (1996).
Corrected bad link:Umm Kulthum: A Voice Like Egypt