Congratulations California!

We here at Casa LiturgyGeek frequently miss The Pocket Mardis, a delightful blog run by a friend. Happily, Mardis still regularly posts pithy comments on Facebook, and today made me laugh out loud. In response to the ruling declaring California's Prop 8 unconstitutional, Mardis wrote: "Congratulations, California: You're finally almost as cool as Iowa."

As a native Californian now living in Iowa, I could not be prouder that where I currently reside, adults are free to marry, and today I am delighted that my home state is one step closer to the equality we've been living with for the past 16 months.

Good News for California Equality

There is probably nothing worse than coming down with the flu while having dinner with good friends less than a week before Christmas. I hate throwing up more than just about anything else in the world. And I really hated leaving J & T's house - it's becoming a tradition to share a meal with them and our mutual friends M & J around the holidays.

The good news is that I am on the mend - this bout of the flu appears to be brutal but quick. That's even better because I have church tomorrow, and it's the children's Christmas pageant. I really do not want to miss our children's hard work. It is the first year I am not teaching Sunday school, and this was going to be a treat for me as well as for the church as a whole. This is one of the great blessings of church growth - there are more people who are excited to take on leadership at all levels, and I get the pleasure of letting go of being "in charge" of some things.

But I am well enough to peruse the internet today, and I came across this. Apparently, California will recognize same-sex marriages from other states as "marriage" if they were performed before November 5, 2008.....and those who've been married since then in other states will receive the benefits of civil marriage, even though it won't be called "marriage" in terms of the law.

It is less than ideal, to be sure. But it is a step towards equality. Thank you for the Christmas present, Governator.

Wednesday Morning Post-Mortem

Since I trust y'all to check out other sites for the political post-mortem as to how marriage equality lost in Maine, and about how it almost lost in Washington, I thought I would just offer my reflections from the morning walk.

This is a real disappointment and setback for those of us who support marriage equality. Mainers are pretty independent-minded folk, and it sounded like we were close to a victory. Which makes this a bitter pill to swallow. If Mainers haven't seen that same-sex marriage did not cause an utter moral collapse in their New England neighbors Vermont and Massachusetts, and if they were not touched by the stories of Maine couples and families whose very lives are affected by this law, then we have a lot longer and harder road than I expected. And if Washington - WASHINGTON!! - won this only by a 51-49% vote, then we have a lot more work to do.

And I must also register my disappointment with President Obama for his utter failure to speak one word of support in this struggle. I get that he personally does not support same-sex marriage - well, actually, I don't get his opposition to marriage equality, but whatever. And I continue to have the sense that he is trying to play the "long game," whereby he's looking at the big picture to shape a stronger and more secure victory for our community in the longer term. But if you only look at the big picture, you miss some important details - and that's what I think is going on with Obama. He's happy to miss the details of Maine and Washington, because that suits his own political sensitivities and unwillingness to rock too many boats. Yet he has a responsibility to support justice and equality for all Americans, even if it makes him a little uncomfortable.

And, of course, this makes it far less likely that DADT or DOMA will be repealed in the next few years, unless President Obama takes a stand in supporting their repeal. That, of course, seems very unlikely - I'm not sure how supporting this figures into his long game when supporting Maine equality is not. (Though, Mr. Obama, if you are reading this, I'd be thrilled if you proved me wrong! Seriously, if you are reading this, prove me wrong.) I guess this also means that Massachusetts, Vermont and Iowa will have to continue to take the lead on this issue. Which is good for me and for Holy Knit!, because we serve congregations in these states....but it's not so great for the people of Maine or elsewhere.

All this happens in an utterly ridiculous context in which the majority gets to determine the rights of the minority. Since when did it become our civic duty to vote on people's basic civil and human rights? And since when is it a great moral victory to vote to DENY people those rights? Something is seriously skewed in our nation's understanding of what it means to be a democratic republic.

Oh! One More Gem From Yesterday

I forgot to mention that I spoke to one of our local magistrates about the change in Iowa's marriage laws. Turns out, this magistrate has already presided at a same-sex marriage. The magistrate's exact words to me: "I thought the court made the right decision."

Who knew the allies we have in our midst? We won't know unless we ask. And I think I've already noted the kindness and utter professionalism of our county recorder's office. I have no idea about their personal views, but really, it doesn't matter. They are doing their job graciously and effectively, as they always have.

I am really proud of this little community, and so happy to call it home.

In other news...

Dick Cheney, WTF?  One would hate to speculate that he has some sort of dread illness that is forcing him to repent of his earlier beliefs, but what else can explain this sudden change of heart vis-a-vis marriage equality?

When my brother-in-law (between Backbencher and I, we'll surely think of a clever nickname soon) texted me with this information, I was sure he was lying.  Because Dick Cheney made a real point of being a a real asshole - sorry, there's just no other word for it - about this issue when he was in office.

Maybe in the final throes of his publicity, he's trying to make headlines.  Or maybe he just realizes how a policy that denies equality denies the humanity of one of his own children.  

He may be an ally on this issue, but I'm still inviting him the Lambda Legal family picnic in Des Moines on July 18, 4-7 pm at the South Shelter of the Evelyn Davis Park (1400 Forest Avenue).  But I am inviting you!  Message me with your RSVP info - and kids are totally invited to this event.  You might even get to hear me speak.  (Okay, you definitely will get to hear me speak!)

Pastor Dan Is Cool

He pointed me to this interesting article.  Check out, in particular, UCC clergy's points of view:  67% support marriage equality, an additional 24% support civil unions, and only 9% are opposed to both.

FWIW, I'm fairly certain that these numbers do not accurately reflect the UCC association in which I currently serve.  There are definitely other marriage equality supporters here, but I'm fairly certain there's at least as many opposed.  Then again, I know I've been guilty of underestimating people's willingness to support this kind of stuff in this part of the state before, so .... I'd so love to be wrong here!

Oh, and if you don't know Pastor Dan, you need to go check out his website.  

New Hampshire, Baby!

Apparently, the governor of NH will sign the marriage equality law there, too. Not super-crazy about all the religious-protection language he throws in (I'm okay with noting that churches don't "have to" perform same sex marriages, but this language seems overbroad to me)...but, nonetheless, the tide is moving in the direction of justice and equality!

Thanks be to God!

On the UCC and "Official Stances"

PastorJoelle recently asked me via the blog: What is your church's official stance on same - sex marriage?  While I'm not 100% sure if my "church" she meant "congregation" or "denomination," I'm going to take a stab at answering.  

Well, first of all, the appropriate answer to any question that begins "What does the UCC believe/think..." (or "What is the UCC's stand on...") is "It depends."  See, the UCC has very few "official statements."  Our basic unit of life is the local congregation, and we're essentially autonomous in our governance.  Yes, ordination and authorization for ministry happens through the association (in cooperation with a local church, and possibly also a fourth institution, such as a hospital), and yes, the national setting of the UCC (or some part of that national setting) does sometimes makes statements/pronouncements on this matter or that.  But, local churches aren't bound by these decisions - they needn't "obey" or agree with what's said.

Every two years, the UCC comes together in what is called a "General Synod," which has delegates from every association, and we vote on "pronouncements" and "resolutions."   The thing is, General Synod speaks TO the church at large, not FOR the church.  This means that when we get together, we're talking about all this stuff for each other, and guiding the work of the national setting(s) of the church in between General Synods.  STILL, local congregations aren't "bound" by these decisions in the way that a Lutheran or Episcopal church might be.  

All that being said, at General Synod XXV in Atlanta (Atlanta, baby!) in 2005, the General Synod did vote to, among other things, "calls upon all settings of the church to engage in serious, respectful, and prayerful discussion of the covenantal relationship of marriage and equal marriage rights for couples regardless of gender..." (see the full pronouncement here).  It was a contentious and difficult decision.  We lost some churches over this (or, perhaps more precisely, over issues of biblical interpretation that led to the passage of this resolution).  

Yet no church is bound by this.  In fact, it would be perfectly fitting of our polity for a church to engage in just such a discussion and come to the conclusion that marriage should be between a man and a woman only.  Obviously, some churches in the UCC do come to this conclusion.  

As to whether or not the congregation I serve has a stance on same-sex marriage, at this point I can only point to our Open and Affirming statement, adopted by the congregation in 2000: "First Congregational, United Church of Christ in Red Oak is an active and dynamic congregation with a rich history and an exciting ministry to the community.  We welcome into this community of faith, and affirm the participation in all aspects of church life, persons of every age, race, gender, nationality, ability, and sexual orientation.  We will empower ourselves, our children, and one another to be fully present in the world, living in Christ's image and striving for justice and peace."  From this statement (and the text I bolded), and from what I know of the views of most of the people at church, it seems logical that we would affirm same-sex marriage.  But until the congregation has a chance to speak its mind, I would hate to speak for them or name this as their reality.

And in fact, due to a series of interesting circumstances this spring, our congregation has not technically addressed this issue in a formal sort of way.  We will do so on May 17, at forum following worship, and I would covet your prayers as we discern the ways that God is calling us to live into this commitment.  I suspect I know how much of the conversation is going to go, but it's also important for us to check in periodically about how we are living out this commitment.

The church's normal policy regarding marriages held in the church or done by the pastor basically comes down to "the pastor's discretion."  Which means it's up to me, and obviously, I consult with the board, if only to inform them of what I'm doing.  To be truthful, up until this year, weddings have not really been a big deal here.  I've done 1 a year, or 4-5 a year, but never a whole bunch.  With Iowa's marriage equality ruling, I expect that may change.  Finding a balance of serving this need while also serving the not- insignificant needs of the congregation and my own spiritual/familial needs will definitely be a priority in the next several months.

I must also disagree with you, dear PastorJoelle, when you say, "I'm just saying it would be nice to have a little church support and guidance in this matter other than - 'Do whatever you think is best.'"  I love the autonomy of the UCC and while I am sometimes tempted to wish for a bishop's authority, it is never for very long (Bishop Yvette Flunder would be AWESOME, but what if I ended up having to submit to someone like Peter Akinola?  No thanks!)  The UCC takes seriously the "responsibility of every generation to make the faith its own" (it's from our Constitution) and I really appreciate that we have to do the work...and that we are are responsible for the work.

In some ways, it is easier to have an answer one way or another - this way you can agree gracefully, submit gracefully even if one disagrees, or to choose to faithfully dissent.  But, this is not our way in the UCC.  It's a lot harder, and let me tell you - lots of us get really sick of being in the in-between time where all our answers are tentative at best and we have to keep fighting the same battles over and over (and over and over) again.  But, that's the work of Christianity - and a substantial part of the work of the UCC is to disagree in love and find a way to stay together, united in Christ even if not much else.

PastorJoelle, I am keeping your congregation and your denomination in my prayers in this season.  As well, I will remember all those who live in tension between their personal faith convictions and the "official" stance of their denomination/tradition.

The Count Now Stands at Five

That is, five same-sex couples who have asked me to perform their marriages. Many come from far away, and I am getting very creative in the pre-marital work I am asking of them (one couple has been together for nearly twenty years), but I have 4 dates on the calendar for the next 13 months, and one couple that will probably get back to me sometime this week. Plus, one heterosexual couple is in the mix, too!

Exciting times, let me tell you.

Oh, wait? Did you hear about Maine passing a law for marriage equality? And NH voting soon on the issue? AND the good old District of Columbia voting to recognize the same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions? I am losing count of where we are now in this good fight. All I know is, the news keeps getting better and better.

Unless you read my local paper. We have a new thing I sort of like, "Lean to the Left/Lean to the Right" where two staff writers take on an issue from their respective positions. The "left" guy is someone I don't know, but should. His take on marriage equality is very basic, but perfectly appropriate (of course, I always think I'd be more eloquent and perfect in my work...but you reader(s) know that's far from true). The "right" woman is the spouse of a local clergy person. She is nice enough, but if you read today's editorial, I think your head will explode as mine almost did (don't worry, the office is all cleaned up in time for tonight's meeting).

What's weirdest is that it's a basically incoherent rant that barely touches on the issue of same-sex marriage. Just that, you know, one day the world will end and people will look back on 2009 as the year all the debauchery began. (I don't even know what the "Muslim with machine-gun" thing even referenced, either. Anyone?)

Go Read Pope Laura the Beneficient

(I just added that last part today; she is generous and kind and definitely deserves the title)  

Yes, it is a "response" to something I just blogged, but she raises some key issues about our assumptions of people who live in various parts of the United States.  And yes, isn't it telling that one of the places you'd "naturally expect" same-sex marriage to be a no-brainer (California) is a place where not only is it no longer legal, but also that the marriages performed there in mid-2008 may soon be invalidated....while the fact that today, same-sex couples are getting married in the cornfields of Iowa?

Something I'd Never Thought Of ...

A couple of weeks ago, I had lunch with my friends JW and J.  J and I had planned to eat together, and JW, who works near the coffee shop/cafe, arrived not long after and we invited him to join us.  J and I were talking about the Iowa Supreme Court marriage ruling, and she asked me to share my thoughts concerning the arguments that Polk County had put forward.

"Marriage is to make babies, and 'we've always done it this way'" was my snarky summation.  We laughed at the ridiculousness of it, and I noted that I thought it strange that the Polk County recorder had let a relatively inarticulate and obviously out-of-his-depth ADA argue the case.  JW, a local attorney, said, "Well, maybe that was on purpose.  The DA has to enforce the law as it is on the books, but ... maybe they wanted the plaintiffs to win.  It's not like counties never hire outside counsel for cases like this."  

I confess I'd never considered this possibility.  Could it have been that the Polk County recorder and DA wanted to get this case to the SC, and wanted this discriminatory law overturned?  All of a sudden, I was filled with gratitude for this potential legal strategy.  Since I don't know the Polk County recorder, nor their DA, I can't say for sure.  But this actually sounds pretty plausible to me.  Why didn't the DA hire outside counsel for this case - one with national implications?  I am sure there are tons of organizations who could have pleaded (pled?) this case for the DA, maybe even pro bono.  Crazy!

This is relevant because, of course, some local county recorders are trying to get out of their legal obligations by claiming their opposition to same-sex marriage is religious in nature.   (I think Jocelyn over at wtf would jesus do? or someone at Street Prophets pointed out yesterday that these same people also oppose re-marriage on religious grounds, but they seem to have no problems processing those requests.)  Yeah, not so much, according to the state AG.

Here's the thing: when you work for the government, you are not allowed to discriminate, even if your religious beliefs support discrimination.  When you take an oath to discharge certain duties, you are legally bound to discharge those duties even when you don't like it.  If you decide that you can no longer discharge those duties in good conscience, you are not able to live up to the oath of office you took.  One is not legally required to work for the state, so if working for the state violates your conscience...well, find a new job that doesn't.  It's really not that difficult.

As a local school board member, I'm required in that capacity to uphold the state constitution, not to uphold the Bible.  If I have a religious objection to something, I can't simply say "my religion forbids me to do this, or require me to do this."  I must find a legitimate legal reason to object; or I must abstain.  And if there's a large divide between my personal religious beliefs and my legal duties, I need to consider resigning my position.

I'll be interested to see how this plays out, as next Monday is when counties have to (or get to!!!) start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  A part of me suspects this is a tempest in a teapot, or attempts to stir up trouble where there isn't any, really.....but, we'll see.

Letters to the Editor

Our local weekly often has "gems" of letters to the editor. If I've written previously, you can bet that they are all about how appalled the reader is that I serve a church because I'm obviously the spawn of Satan or some hedonistic forced-abortion satanista. Or, if they are feeling charitable, just hopelessly misguided and in need of lots of prayers to repent of the errors of my ways and teachings. What can you do? I usually stew for a few minutes, then laugh and laugh.

This week's letter, in response to a quote of mine that appeared in the Omaha World-Herald (the nearest daily), was rather cute. I reprint it here in its entirety and verbatim (except for the town name):
"Saturday morning right on the front page of my newspaper is the United States with a big red dot over Iowa. And in reading about this abomination against God a small church Reverend in XXXXXXX has proclaimed a victory.
We as Christians and disciples of God have again let Satan's foot in the door."

The red dot, if you're new to this site (and God only knows why this would be the post that brings you here, but, hey, welcome, have a seat, enjoy the view) is in regards to marriage equality, which came to Iowa on April 3.

Thank you, Donald Allen of my hometown. It gave me a good laugh; also, I laughed again when my friend JW called to ask if Satan was home. But I just have one question - when were the other times we let Satan's foot in the door? When women started to get ordained? When women were no longer the property of their fathers or husbands? When the abominable snowman was revealed to be a gentle giant who just needed a tooth pulled?

'Nuff Said

On marriage equality as a barometer of religious freedom.

Very Belated Post

I had the honor to speak at the Council Bluffs Marriage Equality Victory Rally on April 3, and yep, I'm just getting around to posting what I said. To be accurate, what I said can best be described as "inspired by" what's below, because at the last minute I decided to go off-script and just speak.

April 3, 2009 ~ At the inauguration of our current president, Barack Obama, Sen. Dianne Feinstein spoke of “the sweet victory of this hour.” Iowans, these are our words today!!! For we who love justice and equality, for we who wish to affirm that all Iowans are equal under the law, for we who believe that all Iowa families deserve to be treated fairly, this is indeed a sweet, sweet hour, a sweet, sweet victory.

God is good – all the time!

Yes, it’s true. I believe that God has brought us to this day. God rejoices with us as we celebrate the triumph of love over fear, justice over oppression, and holiness in the midst of our closest relationships. God is smiling upon Iowa this day! As an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ, I affirm that God is still speaking and God says we are all equal in God’s eyes. We are all beloved of God! We are all free! The sweet victory of this hour is in the ways that all blessed and holy relationships may now be honored fairly by the state of Iowa. Thanks be to God!

Even as I invoke the name of God in giving thanks for this sweet victory, I know that there are some here and throughout our great state who feel this decision is a travesty in the eyes of God. I cannot change your mind. I am not here to change your mind, sorry though I am that we disagree.

I am here to ask to you to acknowledge just one thing: that in our society, marriage often has both RELIGIOUS and CIVIL aspects. This union of religion and civics within the word “marriage” makes lots of people uncomfortable. Believe me, I get it. It is a curious conflation. But it is real.

What we celebrate today is not a religious victory. [It’s not, even for those of us who support marriage equality as a religious issue.] This is a civic victory: that insofar as marriage is a civil contract, the state has no business discriminating against consenting adults who wish to enter into it. What has happened today is that the Iowa Supreme Court has affirmed the equal recognition and protection of the privileges and rights of all individuals in civil marriage, no matter the gender of each partner.

As for the religious definition of marriage … well, the courts have no jurisdiction there. Insofar as marriage is a religious compact, even a sacrament, the state has no business telling religion what to do or whom it must join in holy matrimony. And it does not pretend to. If your religious beliefs or that of your church, synagogue, masjid or other place of worship do not recognize marriage between two persons of the same gender, you are free to go on believing and practicing that belief. You do not have to marry same-sex couples. You don’t have to go to their weddings and you do not have to have those weddings in your places of worship. The First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of religion are intact.

What has changed is only the civil definition of marriage. (only!) But for we who love justice, for we who walk in love, for we who seek liberation for the oppressed, it is enough. It is enough.

And see, if you are like me, and worship in a faith community where all people are welcome to participate in the full life, fellowship and leadership of the congregation, no matter their sexual orientation, now, the same-sex holy unions we perform can now have the same weight and authority as the heterosexual unions we perform. Because brothers and sisters, we have been marrying gay and lesbian couples for years! And we will keep on doing it – this time with the knowledge that we celebrate not only a religious uniting of two of God’s children, but also a legal creation of a family. What a joy that the state has finally caught up with what we have known to be true all along – that love makes a family.

Seven months ago, in the state of California, I had the privilege of uniting in holy matrimony and in civil marriage two women who had been a couple for twenty years. These women had raised three children together and seen more trouble than most of us can imagine. They had loved each other in the closet for most of that time, and they resisted most ways of having their relationship recognized formally. But when the time came for marriage equality in their state, they jumped. They opened their lives up to their friends and coworkers. They called their children and invited them to the special day. They got on their nicest clothes and they walked down a dusty path in a beautiful park and they pronounced their vows to each other, and they kissed, and they were legally married. The law recognized what the spirit had always known – that these two people were meant for each other, now and forever. And on that day, possibly the only person happier than they were was their daughter – the minister who presided at their union. Me.

So you see, this is not only a political victory, but it is a personal and family victory for all Iowa’s families. Thank you, God, for the sweet victory of this hour."

I missed a few good points raised by others, such as the fact that I support marriage equality BECAUSE OF my Christian faith, not in spite of it, but I think the message came through anyway. I also added a couple of points, like apologizing on behalf of Christians everywhere for the abuse GLBT persons have suffered at the hands of "the Church." (I know I can't make up for it, I know I'm not personally responsible for it, but it needs to be said nonetheless.)

It was a great rally and to the best of my knowledge, we had no counter-protestors. The thrill of that day was partly eaten up by the annoyance of the next few days when protests became more formal in the Iowa Legislature, and at the local legislative coffee when the people who represent this district were ridiculous in their assessments.

Our state senator even invoked the tired line of "teaching this to our children in schools" and our state representative went on and on about how the court overstepped its bounds. Why don't these people get that they don't have a right to vote on other people's civil liberties? Do they not understand that the function of a state Supreme Court is precisely to rule on the constitutionality of laws enacted by the legislature? Have they never heard of "checks and balances"? Did they ever show up for their civics classes? The mind boggles.

Great Facebook Commentary on Iowa Supreme Court Ruling

All my friends from California told me I was nuts to leave there to come to Iowa to serve a church.  I explained that the privilege of being a straight white woman is that I can go to A LOT of places and speak on a number of important issues, and that people will hear it differently coming from me; and that I had a responsibility as a person of faith to go to some of those more challenging places.  Basically, I came to Iowa to be a missionary for progressive Christianity.

Of course, progressive Christianity is already alive and well in Iowa, but in my part of the state, I really am a missionary.  (And I'm occasionally vilified for this!)  I actually love it.  I shake stuff up here.  And it's odd, because sometimes I get down on myself because I think I should be doing so much more, and I'm really not so radical after all, blah blah blah....until I remember that in this context, supporting marriage equality and a woman's right to choose when and whether to have children is incredibly radical to almost everyone except the people in the church I serve (and even some of them think it's radical).

Well, yesterday was my vindication to all those mockers from CA.  Marriage equality is here to stay - for at least 3 more years, as opposed to the what, 6 months?, it was available there.  Yeah, we totally rock here!  In the immortal words of Matt Damon in "Good Will Hunting," "How you like them apples?"  Or, as I kept saying so ineloquently yesterday, "SUCKAs!!!!!!"  (Bless their hearts)

Well, now that that schadenfreude is over (and to any of my friends from CA or anywhere else who wants to get married in Iowa and me to preside, get on my calendar soon because I imagine my dance card may soon begin to fill.......), so many peeps came up with some GREAT Facebook commentary on this decision.  I shall share a few gems below:

From Will, a friend from NYU XC: "A new - and surprising - state slogan: Iowa: more progressive than California."

From Patrick, former camper from Caz, "I think [the ruling] said a same-sex marriage ban was 'totally gay.'"

And some news article quoted a woman at one of the rallies with a sign that said "Corn-fed and Ready to Wed."  Well, I'm already married, but I'm ready to marry you, gay couples in the Outer 47.  Come be blessed by our state and its progressive values.  Even in my part of the state, you'll find plenty who share your joy.

PS Check out Backbencher's post on the ruling.  It's great!  (Partly because he's great!)

State Supreme Court Smackdown!

The ones getting smacked were the people representing the Polk County Recorder's office, of course! Marriage equality has come to Iowa today, and I couldn't be happier!!!!

I also, being the dork that I am, read the full decision (okay, I skimmed parts of it - I understand the difference between strict scrutiny, rational basis, and intermediate scrutiny, so I just needed to know what they used). It is amazing. Read it here. (The six-page summary for you wusses is here.)

The Iowa Supreme Court took every argument that the Polk County Recorder's office raised and thoroughly ripped them to tiny little shreds. Then they poured gasoline on those shreds and burnt them. Then, they took the ashes, and steamrolled over them. It was a thing of beauty. I love when justices do this - it is devastating and marvelous all at once! I had every confidence that the defendants had a weak case, and boy did it show in this decision. And can I just say, "Thank you!!!" to the justices for their strong, reasoned, principled, and thorough work? A-freakin-mazing.

Also, they nicely made clear that this is about CIVIL MARRIAGE and does not affect RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE in any way. Except that now I don't have to feel that I'm participating in a discriminatory act when I sign opposite-sex marriage licenses. And, of course, I can marry gay and lesbian couples, starting April 24. But all y'all who don't want to perform same-sex marriage and who want to pour on the hate over my gay and lesbian friends still are free to do so.

And it was UNANIMOUS! What a great day to be an Iowan!! God be praised! And thank you, God, for justices who do their work mindful of the firestorm it may create but courageous enough to do their job of interpreting the constitutionality of laws nonetheless.

Tomorrow!

Tomorrow is the day when the Iowa Supreme Court will issue its ruling on Varnum v. Brien, a marriage equality case. (That would be "same-sex marriage" for all you folk not totally up on the liberal lingo regarding the issue.) It could very well happen - we could be the next state to support our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters when they choose to enter into the civil institution of marriage. Wouldn't that be great?

Some, of course, may wish to enter into the religious institution of marriage at the same time. If so, come to my church! I'll be glad to marry you to your spouse - but you will have to do the pre-marital counseling stuff I require of all couples I marry.

In case you were wondering, I am saving my eloquence for the rally in Council Bluffs tomorrow, where I'll be speaking on behalf of (at least some) communities of faith in support of marriage equality. See you tomorrow at 5:30pm; location to be updated as soon as I know it!

In the meantime, let's pray for equality and justice for all Iowans (it's a Christian prayer, but feel free to translate to your own tradition as is appropriate):
God, in your mercy, you create us for intimacy and love, and you shape our desires in many holy ways. You give us the bonds of marriage that we may make a family with our beloved, and that through our dearest relationships your love may be made manifest. We pray this evening for the state of Iowa and its great people, that we may be a place where all couples may freely marry their beloved. Tonight we pray especially for our gay and lesbian citizens, that come tomorrow, they may share equally in the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Give us courage to speak your love in clear tones, strength for the journey that lies ahead, and grace abundant, as you have so shown us in Jesus Christ. Amen.

Something Fun

from the good people at Feministing. Enjoy!

Fidelity

Catch this video (yah, I'm still learning how to embed these things, so for now you'll just have to click the link).

I won't rehash the marriage equality arguments here, or give a big shout-out to my moms, who are among the 18,000+ couples legally wed in California. But for those of you who are married, try to imagine if someone tried to force you to get divorced. Literally force you. Like, going to court against your will to forcibly have your marriage ENDED. Bet you'd love that.

Ironically, the same people who want to force these married people to be forcibly divorced are the same people who lament the "casualness" with which heterosexuals enter and leave "traditional marriage." So, the best way for our culture to honor marriage vows is to ... force happily married people to not be married to each other any longer? Way to honor the sanctity of marriage, you jerks. (Backbencher, who's from the South, says I can say, "Bless their hearts" at the end of that sentence and it doesn't count as an insult.)

h/t Street Prophets and The Pocket Mardis

Sir, Your Fifteen Minutes Were Up Some Time Ago

Please, Kenneth Starr, slip back into obscurity.  Don't be a footnote in TWO shameful events in U.S. history.

A great many things about this whole situation put me into fits.  First of all, I find it maddening and a little sickening that a majority of Californians saw fit to eliminate the rights of gay and lesbian couples to marry.  Marriage equality ("gay marriage" to some of y'all) is not popular, I get that.  Extending equal civil rights to people in the minority seldom is (see Loving v. Virginia, Brown v. Board of Education, etc.) - but just because it is unpopular does not make it okay to discriminate.  The Bill of Rights and state constitutions enumerate the legitimate powers of government, and they also ensure the rights of individuals against the tyranny of government and the tyranny of the majority.  (entering sidebar rant) Look, I don't like guns.  I really, really don't like guns.  I've never fired one - in fact, I've never even held one and hope never to hold one - and yet, it is clear that the Constitution protects the legal rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, and so I support that right.  I find many uses of this right to be odious and unChristian, and I do not plan to ever make use of this right, and I wish there were fewer guns out there (especially those bought "for protection") and fewer people who used them....yet, it is a fundamental civil right that should be available to all citizens.  (not unlike marriage....)

Second of all, this lawsuit reveals the disingenuousness of the supporters of Prop 8, who, before Nov. 4, swore up and down that this change to the CA state constitution would not in any way affect the marriages already performed.  Cold comfort indeed, but now they are reneging on even that.  (I realize that supporters of Prop 8 are no more monolithic in nature than are its opponents, and that not all members of the "Yes on 8" coalition have to agree to everything that every other coalition member says, but still.)  Furthermore, the state AG, Jerry Brown (yep, former Governor Moonbeam) has already expressed his opinion that marriages performed in California during from June to November were and shall remain valid, and he's said repeatedly that would be his position before the courts.  

Third of all, and most personally, this raises up the same specters of fear that my moms lived with for nearly twenty years before I married them this summer.  (I posted my experience here.)  You know, they really were not that into getting married when it was not an option for them, and obviously their relationship isn't any more valid with that piece of paper than it was without it.  And yet, their marriage was a profoundly moving event for all of us, and it was only in the experience of being able to be legally married that they realized just how important it was for them, personally, politically, and spiritually.  

And now Ken Starr wants to take away all of this, for my family and for thousands of other families throughout California.  Thanks a lot.