"The Tyranny," the "Savagery," of the "American Family"

Judith Warner has a moving op-ed today in the New York Times about the 1960s family. Having grown up in the 1960s family in New York and New Jersey. It is this 1950s-'60s era that has defined my life, the way I understand family, church, education...life! Warner explains it beautifully and yet, for me, painfully:

Unlike the baby boomers before us, we “baby busters” of the ’60s never rebelled against the trappings of domesticity represented by our images of the 1950s. Many of us, deep down, yearn for it, having experienced divorce or other sorts of family dislocation in the 1970s. We keep alive a secret dream of “a model of routine and order and organization and competence,” a life “where women kept house, raised kids and kept their eyebrows looking really good,” as the writer Lonnae O’Neal Parker once described it in The Washington Post Magazine.

This was not a family where we who are LBTQG could ever feel comfortable. The gay characters in AMC's "Mad Men" are deep in the closet, covered by cigarette smoke and martinis. I saw my family in Albee's and Guare's plays of the 1960s living room dramas.

She closes with this observation:

How we seem to love and hate those men and women we never knew. What we would give to know their secrets: how Dad managed to come home at 5 p.m. to read the paper or watch TV while Mom fixed dinner and bathed the kids. How Mom turned up at school, every day, unrumpled, coiffed, unflappable. And more to the point: how they managed to afford the lives that they led, on one salary, without hocking their homes to pay for college, without worrying about being bankrupted by medical bills.

Click here for more.

Pace! B

Civil Unions: A Federal Option

There are more articles, essays, and op-eds that are suggesting that one way for President-elect Obama to redeem himself (partially) with the LGBTQ community is with a federal "civil union" bill, in which LBTQG and straight couples who choose not to marry could have a civil union, with all the same rights as those who wish to be wedded and "married" in communities of faith.

Such a push was evident this morning in the News and Observer op-ed by Chuck Small. In a possible address that Obama could give at his inaugural, Chuck Small puts in Obama's mouth the urge that all people have equal rights, including a contractual relationship, a.k.a., civil union or marriage. He ends with this refrain:

Is it too politically risky for the new president to take an immediate stand on such a controversial topic? Perhaps. But the political risk makes it no less a moral imperative for a man who truly believes in the ideal of a more perfect union.

Indeed, such a stance would tell us far more about what the nation can expect in an Obama presidency than any reading between the lines we attempt when we look at Rick Warren's selection to deliver the inaugural invocation.

Click here for more.

Pace!

B

New York Times: Rich Vs. Kristol

Interesting tug of war in the New York Times editorial/op-ed section, as there has been in the Washington Post: Frank Rich scorned Obama for his decision to invite Rick Warren to do the invocation, and Bill Kristol scorned liberals for scorning Obama for the Rick Warren invitation.

In Rich's piece, "You're Likable Enough, Gay People," Obama tends to overestimate his ability to bring different people with different points of view together:

"As we saw during primary season, our president-elect is not free of his own brand of hubris and arrogance, and sometimes it comes before a fall: “You’re likable enough, Hillary” was the prelude to his defeat in New Hampshire. He has hit this same note again by assigning the invocation at his inauguration to the Rev. Rick Warren, the Orange County, Calif., megachurch preacher who has likened committed gay relationships to incest, polygamy and “an older guy marrying a child.” Bestowing this honor on Warren was a conscious — and glib — decision by Obama to spend political capital. It was made with the certitude that a leader with a mandate can do no wrong."

My colleagues believe that Obama and his team are tone-deaf to the situation faced by people who are LBTGQ in this society...as are so many others. As I've written recently, there are many people who keep on being amazed at how growingly intolerant people in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro area are of LGBTQ people. We are no longer the liberal bastion of the South: we are becoming more homogenized and less diverse.

Click here for more.

Meanwhile, Billy Kristol scorns those of us who are liberal-progressives, basically telling us to grow up:

For one thing, there will be the invocation, delivered by Rick Warren. I suspect he’ll be careful to say nothing pro-life or pro-traditional-marriage — but we conservatives have already gotten more than enough pleasure from the hysterical reaction to his selection by the tribunes of the intolerant left. And having Warren there will, in fact, be a welcome reminder of the strides the evangelical movement and religious conservatives (broadly speaking) have made in recent decades.

Click here for more.

So what should Obama do next?

I like Frank Rich's idea myself: move quickly on issues pertaining to LBGTQ people:

McCarthy added that it’s also time “for President-elect Obama to start acting on the promises he made to the LGBT community during his campaign so that he doesn’t go down in history as another Bill Clinton, a sweet-talking swindler who would throw us under the bus for the sake of political expediency.” And “for LGBT folks to choose their battles wisely, to judge Obama on the content of his policy-making, not on the character of his ministers.”

It is time to change!

Pace!

B

Running for School Board Seat in Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools

What a surprise this morning to find my blog read and linked by Mark Schultz of the Chapel Hill News about my interest in running for a place on the school board of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS). Yes, the movie and story of "Milk" is an inspiration. However "Milk" was but one more inspiring message to run for public office, or this public office, which I have thought of for quite some time.

My interest in this position comes from many reasons:
* My bachelor degree (B. Music Ed./Therapy from the Univ. of Kansas, 1978), also brought me into special education contexts in working with young children with severe or profound disabling conditions. I worked for over two years in special education contexts;
* My M.Div. (Princeton Seminary, 1983) focused on human development and religious education;
* My Th.M. (Harvard University, 1985), focused on more courses on human development, education, and religious education, with most of my courses from Harvard Graduate School of Education;
* I have a Ph.D. in Special Education, with a focus in religious education, from UNC-CH, 1988. In other words, educationally I have experience in public schools, especially special education, and knowledge about educational systems and theories that I would like to see experimented with in the CHCCS;
* I have two children who went through the CHCCS schools, along with a former spouse who works in one of the elementary schools. I have seen the good, the bad, and the quite repugnant of CHCCS for almost 15 years. I am very interested (to paraphrase Clint Eastwood) bolstering the "good" of the system, addressing the "bad" of the system, and recognizing and addressing the areas of "in need of improvment" of this system, so that it is a better system for all children and their educational team;
* I taught Christian religious education at Duke Divinity School for over a decade until I was denied tenure because I am an out gay man;
* One of the groups of children, and faculty, staff, and administrators who have had a rocky time in the CHCCS are those who self-identify as LGBTQ. Now, two of the comments on the link made it sound like being an out-gay person running for the CHCCS would be easy:

Why not ....

Fri, 12/26/2008 - 22:54 — FloydTurbo

Like a black man running for office in Harlem .... It's Chapel Hill - Carrboro ..... seriously, why not?

• Login or register to post comments

Good one, Turd-bo!

Sat, 12/27/2008 - 05:56 — dhooley

Hey, it's also kind of like if you ran for Grand Wizard of the Klan!

Nyuk-nyuk-nyuk-nyuk ,,,

***
But here is where reality breaks through: students, staff, administrators, and teachers who are openly LGBTQ do not have it all that easy in the CHCCS. They face subtle discrimination, are bullied, and treated as outsiders, as do the the children of those of us who are out and gay. What is mis-leading about the RDU area, especially Chapel Hill-Carrboro, is that the area is all "O.K." with out LGBTQ people...and that is not the truth. Out LGBTQ parents with children in the CHCCS have a hard time because our children are bullied by other children, staff, teachers, and administrators.

I would run for a seat on the School Board with interest in bettering the educational opportunities for all students in the CHCCS, including those students in special education contexts and those who are LGBTQ.

Click here for more!

O.K.: I'm very interested in running and close to announcing my nomination for a seat in the next election cycle.

Is there support for my nomination? Let me know!

And thanks, Mark, for reading the blog!

Pace!

Brett

Rick Warren: A Flip Flop Saddleback Church

On queerty.com, I noticed this fabulous flip flop: while reporting that they had taken off the notice that gays weren't welcome unless they repented, there is this word from queerty.com that the notice is back on: LGBTQ aren't welcome to Saddleback Church, according to Ms. Cole, a representative of Saddleback:

"I wanted to make sure you were aware that the Q & A addressing homosexuality on the Saddleback Church Web site has not been permanently removed, but rather repurposed for clarity. I know your readers have noticed the change.

Attached is the audio response from Saddleback Associate Pastor Tom Holladay regarding the question, “What Does the Bible Say About homosexuality – is it a sin?” that will be posted later this morning on the site.

Wanted to make sure you were aware of this. Thanks!"

Here's a link to the blog site.

Merry Christmas!

And Mr. Obama: please simply have an LGBTQ person in your inaugural festivities and swearing in, perhaps make a new cabinet position with an out LGBTQ person (so far not represented among the Cabinet), overturn DADT and DOMA...soon! Then everything should be O.K.! O.K.?

Pace!

B

Washington Post Morning: Jonathan Capehart, E. J. Dionne, and Richard Cohen on Obama and Warren

This morning I had to get up early (darn it) because the Spirit was saying "arise!" On "Morning Joe! on msnbc, there was Jonathan Capehart, an out-gay journalist defending gay marriage against Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan. He let them speak a little bit too much for my taste, and he could've pulled in the comparison with the civil rights movement and gay movement better, e.g., both are minorities seeking equal rights.

Read Capehart's article today here.

Jonathan works for Washington Post. And there was a reference to two editorials in the Washington Post, one by E.J. Dionne, and the other by Richard Cohen re: Rick Warren's role in the inauguration! What a day for the Washington Post!

Cohen's sister is gay, and she is not throwing a pro-Obama party on his inauguration day because of Rick Warren. Click here for more.

Dionne thought that this was potentially politically savvy of Obama inviting Warren. Click here for more.

I couldn't get enough!

We are talking about all things gay! Would this be happening had Prop. 8 lost, or Rick Warren not be invited?

Who knows!

Pace!

B

What do Pope Benedict and Rick Warren Have in Common? Homophobia!

This is classic: we are despised by both Rick Warren AND Pope Benedict!

Rick Warren's church, Saddle Back Church, in its small group ministries (How Methodist can you get?!) website explicitly says that homosexuals are not allowed:

We get lectures about civility and the need to welcome everyone, even those we disagree with, and Rick Warren won't even welcome us in his church. This is from the Saddleback Church's own Web site. You know things are bad when the church goes out of its way to explicitly say that you're not welcome as a member in their Web site FAQ. But we're supposed to welcome him to our inauguration. (Hat tip to reader Ken.)

Click here for more.

And then the Pope equated saving straight families from LGBTQ people as all of us saving the rain forest!

Click here for more.

Here's the good news: Obama hasn't invited the Pope--another homophobe--to be in his inaugural festivities.

Pace!

B