Evangelicals and Gays, Part III

Fresh off the lovely MoHo party thrown last Saturday by Scott and Sarah (Thank you both for having us!), we hosted the evangelical group at our home last night. I should call up my friend who’s a Muslim and ask her to set up a group with them each month, just to fill out our calendar ;-). For an agnostic, maybe I keep unexpected company, but it’s appreciated company and I hope I’m learning with each step into the unknown or once known.

I had to do some convincing to get Rob to agree to host last night. The reasons why are probably obvious. They would, in fact, have been my reasons three months ago. I would have expected argument; I would have met them with images of the evangelicals protesting gay pride and LDS conference in mind. I’d certainly not trust such people around our children, or want them to know where we live. I mean, what if? Right?

Three meetings later, after hearing them out and breaking bread together (which, last night, were Rob’s terrific cookies), my old anticipation about these individuals is a source of embarrassment. They are good, friendly people, each the sort of person I’m glad and comfortable to have seated on our family room couch, and that’s saying something.

Reaching beyond the stereotypes and the vocal loons in both our camps was, in part, the theme of last night. Personally, I hope in posting on this, my experience may be some measure of evidence to those in the gay community who harbor similar fears, who may feel a chill when they hear the words “Evangelical Christian”. Those fears are every bit as unfair and unfounded, even if not nearly as legally deleterious to them, as the fears we face.

I suppose I’m not saying my guard is dropped, though. As I explained last night, I’ve no problem having a friend who think homosexuality is a sin, but once it crosses the line into practical, legal harm to my family, the sort they’d not want for their family, then there is only so close a relationship can get before my duties as a husband and father will force a certain distance. There are still vagaries to be dealt with in later meetings, and those who spoke were admittedly unclear on the politics. That was yet another repeating theme: the gays seemed concerned for the practical policy issues their families face, while it seemed the other side was focused on the religious issues.

It may seem we’ve already covered this ground, but it is complicated ground. We spent most the night trying to figure out how best to reach across the divide, to figure out what each community had to do for the other. I am hoping to speak up for the evangelicals, here and in the gay community in general, if I ever hear their names indiscriminately hissed out. One thing I was left impressed with was that they decided, without the gay group putting it out there, that the burden was primarily on their shoulder to reach out because of the political history. I was struck with the amount of willingness to step into our shoes that must have taken and hope they know, while I expect we should all make the effort, the realization of the asymmetry here is very much appreciated, refreshing.

One last thing… I can’t believe this is even a significant news story, but I guess I just don’t have the normal quantity of care for beauty pageants. The topic of the Miss California competition and Carrie Prejean came up last night (you can read on it here). For days now I’ve been thinking people were mispronouncing Paris Hilton’s name, but now I gather this Perez Hilton is a dude, one who seems to represent the gay community to a good number of minds. Anyway, we all agreed: asking the question was a poor choice; his blog response to her answer was simply stupid, and rude (OMG, a blog fight is serious news on gay marriage! :-)). This would be funny for it's silliness, but it seems some groups are still trying to make hay of this and use it to fight against equal marriage rights.

Look, I’ve no issue with her thinking or saying for her family or God marriage is between a man and a woman. Again, I get upset when a person advocates practical harm to their neighbor’s family, but I'd rather a person say it than keep it hidden. Nevertheless, her answer was factually incorrect and revealed a clear lack of knowledge on the topic. The first time I heard it I thought it was a parody and I have a hard time understanding how anyone doesn’t think it should have cost points. I mean, if not understanding of the issues, what are they graded on?

But again, it’s a beauty pageant! Sheesh. People are really fuming about this? The same people who are upset that a single person got second place instead of first in a pageant seem to be absolutely blind to the thousand’s of dollars extra thousands of families pay without marriage law. They seem blind to the legal safety nets they keep from under thousands of couples, parents, and children. They don’t freak out like this when a gay man can’t get claim to his deceased husband’s estate or when the parent of a child isn’t made legally responsible for that child because of their sex, and yet they’re upset about one girl not being Miss America? What odd priorities are those?

Thank goodness the vocal Christians on this one are not the sort of evangelicals I know. Also thank goodness they aren’t the sort to judge the gay community, or the fight for marriage rights, or my family on Perez Hilton.

There are so many pressures and easy excuses like this silly example pushing us all apart, it almost seems like a little miracle nights like last night happen at all.

Evangelicals and Gays Part II

Last night we met with the evangelical group once more; it's a monthly thing now.

And get this: This bridge-building meeting of evangelicals and gays was held in the home of a lesbian couple, the same home in which Gordon B. Hinckley, president of the LDS church, was born and raised. He was actually born on the floor in the room adjacent to the one in which we were all sitting. I have to doubt he ever thought that a lesbian couple would ever be sleeping in his parent's bed room, or that a bunch of gays and evangelicals would be socializing in his living room, some drinking a glass of wine no less :-).

Anyway, I have to say there's a soft spot in my heart for evangelicals--there's something about their form of faith that comes off as charming and cheery in a way I don't often see. All that aside, these people we've been meeting with seem to be really good, charitable and friendly people, and I've enjoyed building these relationships both before and after we get down to moderated business.

Simply, it's a shame there's this wall between the gay community and them, and that's what we were there to feel our way around (or to find if there is a way around).

Last night actually seemed more tense than the first meeting. I think the problem was that we had such a good first meeting. There was more friendship there to break, and we were to be discussing the touchy topic of the use of the Bible and God's view of homosexuality.

The simple fact is they believe, as a matter of faith, homosexuality is a sin.

It seems at this point, though, we became three groups: 1. the evangelicals, 2. the christian gays and lesbians, and 3. the agnostic/atheist gays and lesbians. Group 1 and 2 are concerned about reconciling matters of scripture, and I can certainly see how important that could be to them. Much of the meeting was spent working through that centuries long debate.

Group 3, though, well, I'll just speak for myself. I don't much see the need in going over all that. Not that I won't with some hope; goodness knows I've weathered many arguments over Leviticus and Romans. It just seems to be a problem too big to be solved in a lifetime. It's a matter of faith, and there's no proof to be given.

I was aiming--I don't want to say lower--but elsewhere.

I told them I don't mind if they think homosexuality is a supernatural sin. I don't; I've had plenty of experience being friends (and family) with folks who think that way. The preacher there was reluctant to go where the scriptural conversation was going, knowing it could turn friendship towards hostility, but I wanted him to know his faith would not be held against him by me. I only care that doesn't translate into incivility or practical action against my family in politics or on the street. I care that he doesn't debase our family to our children, but, being adults, I'm sure we can disagree on this and still get along. I only care that the faith doesn't end in him treating me in way he'd not want to be treated.

We ran out of time, but that is the question I'm left with for next month. How do we get from A to C without agreeing on B? Is it possible?

Anyway, these are very nice people and I'm glad to get to know them. We are both minorities here, though, and both have trouble with a larger group. I wish the LDS church was open to such meetings and we could have, say, a bishop come to something like this, just as we had the head of an evangelical ministry there last night. Hey, we could even offer them a tour of Hinckly's childhood home :-).