On Indiana's RFRA, Discrimination and Sex

On Indiana's RFRA, Discrimination and Sex
A few thoughts keep rolling around in my mind as I listen to updates regarding the passage of SB101 in Indiana last week. They tend to circulate like this:

1) What kind of discrimination was it intended to allow, if not against members of the LGBTQ community? To rephrase: what forms of religious freedoms was it intended to protect? I could use a few examples, please.

2) Wouldn’t it just be easier for people to come “out” about their discriminatory preferences, instead of having legislation to protect them in the aftermath? Instead of people having to grudgingly serve others they deem to be judgment-worthy, they get to take a pass, keep their integrity and signal to everyone who doesn’t embrace the discrimination to keep their distance. I am as averse to forcing someone to do something they do not want to as they are to being forced into it. Isn’t being honest about it, instead of relying on legislation, something of a win-win?

3) Aside from this being a terrible step backwards, in terms of legal rights for the LGBTQ community, the issue here is not really a legal one. It is a religious one.

4) See #1.

It seems to me that the underlying point of discussion ought to be about the fact that there are religious traditions that explicitly, and more often implicitly, deny the full personhood of some of our fellow travelers on this planet. There are religious traditions that endorse discrimination. That is worth our attention.

As a biblical scholar, I am quite interested in thinking about how sacred writings contribute to these conversations. I am keen to raise awareness about both the inherent problems with some of the biblical passages — those that are not simply being misinterpreted to have hurtful messages but that actually have hurtful messages — and the issue of perpetuating 2000+ year old world views today, if we are not thoughtful about what we find in these sacred texts. There is, of course, a great deal of overlap there.

But what I find most troublesome in these public discourses is that people end up turning to ancient texts to find guidance and “the truth.” It is not the issue of valuing an ancient text that troubles me, though. There can be incredibly helpful wisdom contained in those tomes. The troublesome part is that some people are taught that the ancient scripture trumps human experiences and realities. This approach to sacred writings will cause a person to defend, instead of raise a question about, any of the patriarchal and heteronormative elements within them.

The thing is, what we know about those ancient patriarchal and heteronormative worldviews and beliefs do, at times, unsettle me to my core. I am not fond of the belief that I (being a female, biologically) am simply a not-fully-formed male, for instance. (My clitoris just didn’t quite make it to the penis state, apparently.) As for that belief that males are by default more intelligent and more logical than females? Just don’t even get me started on that one. But all of these beliefs were alive and well at the time in which much of the sacred writings were produced and canonized. And these three ideas are just the tip of the iceberg, folks. Some of the ideas at the time about sex, procreation and emotions or passions might shock you.

As for the matter that might really be at the center of this issue, regardless of how it is dressed up: what undergirds religious folk’s resistance to embracing the LGBTQ community is sex. How people have it matters, in this conversation. Whether or not it can lead to procreation (Gen 1:28) or looks like all the couples having approved-of sexual relations in the Bible is actually at the core of this debate. As I have argued previously here on HuffPost Religion, and more fully in Permission Granted (ch. 4, Sex: Who, What & Why?), the role of sex in the bible and its role for us today are quite different things.

The fact that some people really do care about how everyone is having sex is actually a significant part of this discussion. Please stop and think about that bit for a moment. That they think it should always and only be between a man and a woman conveniently leaves out the other primary biblical reason/role of sex, which is procreation. Not only do hetero-couples not always have sex that could cause fertilization, but also our global village is having overpopulation issues. Our procreating all too well might be our downfall.

People who grow up being told that sex is only to happen between a man and a woman will quite naturally have discomfort about versions of sex that look different. But their discomfort does not mean that only hetero-sex is okay.

I am tired of hearing people say that Christianity, for instance, is about love. No. I am sorry, but not all versions of it are. Thus we can safely say that there are elements in the Christian scriptures, doctrines, and/or traditions that allow for some unloving beliefs, and thus unloving actions and interactions.

If you would like to treat a group of people differently, as if they had a deadly virus that you could catch if you interacted with them, based on your religious beliefs, then I say it is time to rethink your religious convictions. You may have come by them honestly, from your sacred scriptures and the congregation you have known since childhood. I understand that. But that does not mean that your beliefs or the sacred scriptures you turn to cannot handle some honest soul-searching or reconfiguring in light of present day realities.

www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-g-bird/on-indianas-rfra-discrimi_b_6981574.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices&ir=Gay+Voices

Prince Charming Has A Massive Bulge & Jack Black Is Obsessed With James Marsden,

Prince Charming Has A Massive Bulge & Jack Black Is Obsessed With James Marsden,

cca18bed4232bca29579f2b962663303_650x

Remember all the stupid prank calls you made as a kid? Really bad gags like “is your refrigerator running? Then you’d better go catch it.” Well, Michael Jackson thought they were still really funny as an adult and tortured Russell Crowe with them for years.

James Marsden is pretty damned irresistible. He’s so sexy that he even makes Jack Black question his sexual orientation in the upcoming comedy The D Train.

Richard Madden, who plays Prince Charming in Disney’s live-action adaptation of Cinderella must have a massive D. The actor told Jimmy Kimmel the lengths he had to go to hide his scary genitalia from family audiences.

Julianne-Moore-CSTV

Recent Oscar-winner Julianne Moore is not only a gay icon but one of the greatest actresses of our time with a slew of fantastic performances in films such as Boogie Nights, Magnolia, The Hours and The Kids Are Alright under her belt. So screw Turkey’s ministry of culture and tourism for firing her from a promo for what they dubbed her “poor acting.”

Remember that time Janet Jackson worked with Giorgio Moroder?

grace-frankie-800

Netflix has offered the first peek at Grace and Frankie, which reunites 9 to 5 costars Lily Tomlin and Jane Fonda as women whose husbands (Sam Waterston and Martin Sheen) who reveal they’re secret lovers and run off together. The series will premiere May 8.

Jeremy Kinser

feedproxy.google.com/~r/queerty2/~3/xfwjKEf8IC4/prince-charming-has-a-massive-bulge-jack-black-is-obsessed-with-james-marsden-20150331

Steve Grand's 'Time' Video Charts the Course of a Love Affair: WATCH

Steve Grand's 'Time' Video Charts the Course of a Love Affair: WATCH

Time_grand

There are many relationships that await us in life and you could meet your next guy because you missed a train. Singer-songwriter Steve Grand takes a look at the highs, the lows, and the possibilities in the video for “Time”, a cut off of his new album All-American Boy, featuring model Daniel Williams.

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP


Andy Towle

www.towleroad.com/2015/03/grandtime.html

Denver Mayor Bans Government Travel To Indiana Over Religious Freedom Law

Denver Mayor Bans Government Travel To Indiana Over Religious Freedom Law
Denver Mayor Michael Hancock (D) on Tuesday banned city employees from using public funds for non-essential travel to Indiana, citing the state’s controversial new religious freedom law.

“Denver is an inclusive city, and we take tremendous pride in that,” Hancock said in a statement. “Due to the actions taken by the State of Indiana, we will join with other cities across the nation in suspending the use of city funds for official business to Indiana. This law is just wrong, plain and simple, and we will not tacitly condone discrimination through the use of taxpayer dollars.”

Hancock joins the mayors of Portland, Oregon, San Francisco and Seattle in banning official travel to Indiana. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) issued a similar ban on Tuesday. On Monday, Connecticut became the first state to block official travel to Indiana over the new law.

Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signed into law by Gov. Mike Pence (R) last week, allows businesses or individuals to cite religious beliefs as a legal defense when sued for discrimination by a private party. Opponents contend the law allows businesses to openly discriminate if they don’t want to serve lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender people.

The law has been widely criticized and condemned in recent days. Pence vowed on Tuesday to back an amendment clarifying that the law does not allow businesses to deny service to anyone.

Pence has steadfastly defended the law, repeatedly comparing it with an existing federal statute. Critics, however, point out that the Indiana law allows businesses to claim religious views and to invoke those views against individuals. The federal law addresses disputes between individuals and the government.

HUFFPOST READERS: If you live in Indiana, we want to hear about how this law is affecting you. Email your story or any tips to [email protected]. Include your name, the city you live in, and a phone number if you’re willing to be contacted by a reporter.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/31/denver-indiana-travel-ban_n_6981240.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices&ir=Gay+Voices