CLGS

By now most people have heard how the blame game was played after the
passage of Prop 8 in California. Scapegoats included people of color,
campaign organizers, communities of faith, even Hollywood (who is seen as
being kind to queer folk) because they could have helped to bankroll the
campaign more than they already did. There were groups of angry people
who took matters a step further and decided to vandalize places of worship,
such as Catholic Churches and Mormon Temples as these two communities
were targeted as the main financial supporters of the “Yes on 8” campaign.

As an organizer working with faith communities, one of my goals during the
No on 8 campaign was not only to move “church going” folk in their voting
for marriage equality; I also found that I had an equally challenging task of
moving marriage equality activists away from an aversion or fear of faith
communities in order to encourage them to use tactics and language that
would speak to congregations. The common thread between the “Yes on 8”
and “No on 8” campaigns was fear – fear to listen to lesbian and gay voices
as they shared their stories of the value of their relationships, families and
their faith. From a faith perspective, I found that with conservative
congregations, my work included addressing their fear that same-sex
marriage destroys families and challenging the misconception it is wacky,
fringe, or blasphemous to open their doors and welcome LGBTQI
individuals. On the activist side, the task was to address that queer people
who attend religious services are not naïve in their faith by clinging to a God
that has no love for them or doesn’t exist.

Many would agree that religion is the root reason why there is so much
homo and transphobia in our society, why we have such suppressed views
about sexuality in general, and why lesbians and gays deal with internalized
homophobia. Post election polling data confirmed what many of us already
knew that people who voted for Prop 8 (and against marriage equality) did
so largely based on their religious convictions. Religious conviction is also
the reason why President Obama states why he is opposed to same-sex
marriage, but in favor of domestic partnerships. No doubt, addressing
religious arguments will be important and need to taken into account as we
move forward in the new and next phase of campaigning for marriage
equality.

As much as we hate to admit it, the separation between church and state is
not a reality in the minds of many Americans and religious convictions do dictate public policy. While I support the right of anyone to their own
theological beliefs, such as our President, I stand against any theology that is
oppressive and not life-giving (murdering physicians who perform late term
abortions, for example). While I understand the argument that says “All
theology and religion has been oppressive,” I disagree with it. Many of us
are familiar with people who say they are spiritual, but not religious. We
understand them to mean that they acknowledge a higher power in their
lives, but do not subscribe to religious institutions that are exclusive and
oppressive of human beings. This, in and of itself, is a theology and when
put into practice can be considered “religion.” All of this is to say that there
are religious convictions that can be positive and life-giving.

The day following the California Supreme Court’s decision to uphold
Proposition 8, I was watching Larry King Live who pitted a legal activist
who was for marriage equality against a former pro-football player who is
now a pastor of a conservative congregation in Southern California. While
the legal activist was incredibly knowledgeable, she spoke a different
language than this pastor. Legal and activist arguments do not always mesh
well with theological ones. In public discourses, why don’t we pair up legal
minds with legal minds and theologians with other theologians? There are
theologians who have dedicated their lives to the study of ancient texts as
they pertain to LGBT people in order to understand the culture and context
in which these words were written. These men and women teach in
theological institutions and lead congregations as they encourage students
and parishioners to seek live-giving ways to become more inclusive and less
exclusive.

As strategies are being formulated about the when’s and how’s of the next
campaign to “change hearts and minds” about marriage equality, let us
consider inviting and listening to these progressive scholars and religious
practitioners who have experience dismantling these religious arguments
made by religious conservatives. One way of addressing their arguments is
by addressing their fear. In many fundamentalist congregations, it is a belief
if they support the “liberal ideology” of gay marriage they will go to Hell.
Yet, these same people fail to see how they condemn LGBT people to a Hell
when they shun, bash, or shame them. Is this what they mean by “preaching
the Good News?” It is time to dismantle the hypocrisy of theology that
masquerades as life-giving, but is actually a bitter pill that produces death.
Hopefully as we move forward we will not be motivated by fear, but by faith
that the real Good News is creating a society where separate is not equal and
people are free to live with authenticity and peace with the person they love
because they have all the rights and legal protections that a constitution
provides. People say that I am a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.

Rev. Roland Stringfellow is the CLGS Coordinator of the Bay Area Coalition of Welcoming
Congregations.