The Quotable Queer

Gay marriage is definitely an issue our entire world community is debating. Even communities and countries where one side has claimed victory still debate the issue heatedly. Recently, South Africa joined the four other countries that have legalized homosexual marriage. The Netherlands was the first to do so in 2001, with Belgium following suit in 2003. Both Canada and Spain began performing gay marriages in 2005. (Source: Wikipedia.org)

There is even deep division and even indifference on the issue within the GBL community itself. This division and lack of full GBL community support seriously jeopardizes any major strides and advances in this culture war.

Regardless of personal views on marriage, it is ultimately a multi-faceted institution. Portions of marriage are absolutely government-sanctioned whereas other aspects of marriage are definitely religious and spiritual in nature. Therefore, personal views of a religious nature as well as issues of civil rights play a role in defining marriage.

Freedom from religion and equality are what the United States originally was founded. Equality was certainly not all-inclusive at the birth of this republic, as blacks and women were obviously ignored with regards to holding any power or position within the government.

However, those mistakes were eventually rectified through the amending of the U.S. Constitution. Countries across the globe have over the last few years done similar recalibrations to begin the elimination of double standards in government-sanctioned marriage, simultaneously strengthening concepts of equality and justice for all.

With the premise that marriage is a government institution that carries not only government benefits but also potential personal costs, it seems logical to realize that all relationships of that caliber are deserving of the same rights and the same detriments. On a deeply personal level, confusion, doubt and misinformation are quite problematic to this civil rights issue. Additionally, personal views are not going to change much within any single generation. Therefore, the issue of expanding and limiting marriage will be fervently discussed and legislated for at least the next two decades throughout the global community.

Despite the personal nature of the issue of marriage, should one specific group, sect or generation impose their personal views on these critical social concepts on the population as a whole? If you aren’t in the majority, the answer is never as clear as some civil rights activists would prefer.

Portions of minority communities will always reach out to the majority by acting, behaving and even thinking as the majority does. These community elements oftentimes act against their own best interests hoping to better fit into society. This explains at least a portion of the division in the GBL community on the marriage issue.

The clarification of the rights of marriage along with a community education on the consequences of potential legislation at both the state and federal level is necessary to increase unity within the GBL community as well as the community-at-large on the issue of gay marriage.
The Quotable Queer

Check out my first post on gay marriage as well as my first post onThe Quotable Queer

Here is my letter to the Indianapolis-Marion County City-County Council on an update of the Human Rights Ordinance. May right win over bigotry today!

And you can Quote me on that. The Quotable Queer

I am writing you to urge your support of Proposition 622. Proposition 622 will update the Human Rights Ordinance to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

No matter our personal beliefs, my hope would be that we all could agree that discrimination is not acceptable. Unfortunately, some people will always discriminate, and public policy must act to level the playing field.

Housing and employment should be based on merits alone, not on personal beliefs on personal issues. People will always disagree. Acceptance that a group exists within society does not require agreement with that group or what they represent.

I urge you to side with acceptance that discrimination does indeed take place and is not an acceptable practice in Indianapolis. Vote against discrimination and vote YES on Proposition 622.

There is some glimmer of hope within this most recent discourse on homosexuality by the Catholic Church. There is far more concern though.

“These people must be received with respect and delicacy; one will avoid every mark of unjust discrimination with respect to them.� The Catholic Church appears to be standing against discrimination of homosexuals here. However, the wording could be particularly telling, barring any translation issues. The word “unjust� is of most concern as what is just and right for one is unjust to another. At least there is some progress here with the Church stating discrimination should not take place.

It seems unfathomable the separation of sexual acts with regards to the priesthood within this “Instruction” from the Vatican, stating that “such tendencies must be overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.” This statement by the Catholic Church absolutely separates homosexual acts from that of other sexual acts. It declares that homosexual acts cannot take place during the three years prior to priesthood. It does not state, however, that the same can be said about heterosexual acts.

This just doesn’t make sense. A sexual act is a sexual act, regardless of who or what is involved. All sexual acts should be barred from the priesthood the three years prior to ordination if that is what the Vatican really desires in the diaconate. To separate one or more sexual acts from others seems silly at best. Those desiring to be and already in the priesthood are today misleading both the Church and the public. It seems that making some three year benchmark for no homosexual acts will not change the reality of the situation.

Considering Pope Benedict XVI’s previous statements and positions on homosexuality as Cardinal Ratzinger, the “Olive Branch” regarding discrimination of homosexuals seems a positive move. However, it is no positive sign to see the Church make such foolhardy statements as it does in this “Instruction” regarding the priesthood and homosexuality.

Are they really serious? Of course they are.

And you can Quote me on that. The Quotable Queer

Homosexuality and ordained ministry

Regarding acts, it teaches that, in Sacred Scripture, these are presented as grave sins. Tradition has constantly considered them to be intrinsically immoral and contrary to natural law. These, consequently, may not be approved in any case.

Concerning profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies, that one discovers in a certain number of men and women, these are also objectively disordered and often constitute a trial, even for these men and women. These people must be received with respect and delicacy; one will avoid every mark of unjust discrimination with respect to them. These are called to realize the will of God in their lives and to unite to the Sacrifice of the Lord the difficulties that they may encounter.

In light of this teaching, this department, in agreement with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, holds it necessary clearly to affirm that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, may not admit to the seminary and Holy Orders those who practice homosexuality, show profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture.

The above persons find themselves, in fact, in a situation that gravely obstructs a right way of relating with men and women. The negative consequences that may derive from the Ordination of persons with profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies are by no means to by ignored.

If, however, one is dealing with homosexual tendencies that may be simply the expression of a transitory problem, such as for example an adolescence not yet complete, such tendencies must be overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.
—-
If a candidate practices homosexuality or present profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies, his spiritual director, like his confessor, must dissuade him, in conscience, from proceeding towards Ordination.

It remains understood that the candidate himself has the first responsibility for his own formation. He must offer himself with faith to the discernment of the Church, the bishop who calls to Orders, the rector of the seminary, the spiritual director, and the other teachers of the seminary to whom the bishop or the superior general has entrusted the duty of forming future priests. It would be gravely dishonest if a candidate were to hide his own homosexuality to enter, notwithstanding everything, to Ordination. An attitude so inauthentic does not correspond to the spirit of truth, allegiance, and availability that must characterize the personality of he who believes to be called to serve Christ and His Church in the priestly ministry.
–Catholic World News, November 27th, 2005; Excerpts from “Instruction”