Harvey Milk Saved My Life

Two days ago we went to the Christmas celebration at our local club. I've been to this particular party ever since I was our boys' age. Now we take our children; we go as a family, they all know us as a family, and I never think twice that people may object to a gay couple attending in such a conservative part of town.

And aren't the boys getting to be little gentlemen:
Most in my family have no issue with us either, and I too often don't take the time to say how lucky I am to have all those people in our lives. Sure, the family members who fight against my home hurt me in a unique way, but they weren't there and, really, they are the minority.
(yeah, the purple; that was my sister's idea... She's always been 100% there for us and so I'd have put us all in pink if it made her happy.)

Yesterday morning we sent the boys off to their grandparents and my husband and I wrapped presents in front of the tree and a cozy fire in the fireplace. We talked and joked and fought over the tape. Cliche, but it's true; he's my best friend; he knows me better than I know myself. We're closer to two decades together than one and we still ain't tired of each other's company :-). In fact, each year brings us closer, and to not be deeply in love with him would mean to not be myself.

In the afternoon we all went out for Mexican food at one of our favorite spots. We sat and ate together; I think it's clear what our family is to any waiter or anyone paying attention. Our kids out us everywhere we go and I'm sure our body language does too. But that's not a problem; I usually don't even think of the fact that there's some political controversy surrounding us while we're out.

Grandma collects nutcrackers and so the boys bought an unpainted nutcracker to give to her for Christmas; after dinner they selected the colors and we all got to work.
Once our masterpiece was done, we all went into the living room and sat on the couch and put on The Curse of the Were Rabbit. I fell asleep with my legs on Rob while the kids sat on my back, like I was a booster seat. It must not have been uncomfortable because I fell asleep before the movie ended. When I woke up I found my husband had the kids in bed and was just telling them goodnight. I kissed them both goodnight and sat in Alan's room until he was out, feeling very lucky.
But it's not truly luck, right? I don't have such days by chance, even though I happen to be a gay man; I have them because of a lot of hard work by people I'll never know.

One thing thing I left out between wrapping presents and Mexican food was the fact the Grandparents agreed to watch the boys for a couple more hours and we finally got to see Milk. I'll have more to say about the film than what I'll put here (probably over at isocrat after Christmas, though).

I just want to express my gratitude for now. Maybe it's the season, but I've been quite emotional with hope and gratitude since leaving that theater all puffy eyed.

Sure, I don't much identify with the 1970's gay scene in San Francisco. My last two days would probably be alien to those gay men too, if not outright boring, campy, or conservative. Also and of course, Harvey Milk and many of those other activists of his day were not perfect people, and the film made that clear. There was a good deal of sex and drugs and politics. But the only "perfect" hero is the hero to whom we've done a disservice, dehumanized.

The fact is my life would be unrecognizable today without those men and women three decades ago; I would not have had the last two days without those folks standing up for my rights, when I was still in the womb. I'd probably be single in "therapy", under the weight of superstitions and self-hate, thinking there was something wrong with me and especially with gay people who were out and proud. I may be desperate in some LDS therapist's office undergoing shock treatment like so many other men of that day I now know. If people like Briggs and Aneta Bryant were left unchecked, and no one stood up, things would likely have stayed at that awful level or gotten worse.

That world that could have been, where I couldn't see there was a solution... it seems unbearable enough to make me feel, at a gut level, it's impossible, as though the very laws of physics could never allow such a thing. I suppose there is actually an upper limit to human loss before a person collapses under it's weight, into suicide, and I've seen that happen enough times to know it's another could-have-been for me and many others.

All that could have been, and yet it isn't, and I think it's pretty clear why things changed for gay people. Simply, my life, either in full or in great part, was saved a long time ago by people I'll never know. I can't thank them enough. I can only hope this generation of GLBT is doing as good of a job of addressing today's hurdles and bigots for the next generation. I know I have a debt to them I've not nearly repaid.

Gay Marriage in History

There is a notion hanging about the marriage debate that marriage for gay couples is a recent invention, but accounts do exist of such unions being made throughout our discernable history. They are few and against the often hostile backdrop of our culture’s perspective, but they are there. Simply, to me, marriage is inevitable for most everyone. Most all are created with the nature that pulls us to couple, many to lifelong monogamy, and gays are no exception, even though such unions for gay couples have been greatly undermined by social and legal pressure throughout our written history.

So, this is my Gay Marriage in History Post for what it’s worth. Some of these accounts will intersect with my summary of the western history of homosexuals (here: 1, 2, and 3), and most of the information comes from Homosexuality and Civilization by Crompton, and Out of the Past by Neil Miller:

In pre-Christian Rome, It seems marriage was determined by affectio maritalis (intention to be married). The State didn’t decide marriages unless there was a problem. The rights for those living in a house were spelled out in contract, or by status as property (children and slaves). If a family split up, a judge would have to determine if they lived as married by collecting evidence, and what (or who) contractually belonged to whom.

Furthermore, a gay Roman could bring others under his roof as family, and grown men were “adopted” with the privileges of a family heir. Official marriage for gay couples basically seems unnecessary in many cultures that tolerated homosexuality, as they didn’t have stuff like health insurance to fret about, and had other workable solutions. A homosexual could simply marry in their own way, live in the same home, which made them family, and work the rest out by agreement, like the rest of the population.

I can find some accounts online of official same sex unions being performed by some religious sects of Rome, but they aren't in references I've yet been able to verify.

Nevertheless, as we all know, Constantine converted and the tide began to turn against gays (as I discussed here). When Constantine’s sons took the helm, they implemented edicts giving “exquisite punishment” to the “passive” homosexual in a union only, in 342 AD (my bold):

“When a man marries as a woman who offers yourself to man, what does he wish, when sex has lost its significance; when the crime is one which is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed into another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, a lot of the armed with an avenging sword, but those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment.”

Note the familiar mischaracterization of gay unions. While it seems it took a while to get such laws enforced and to get the public behind them, eventually “exquisite punishment” was realized, and for all those caught in a gay relationship.

Evidence of gay marriage from Portugal and Spain. This event occurred in a Portuguese immigrant region of Rome:

Venetian Ambassador Antonio Tiepolo reports (Rome 1578):
“Eleven Portuguese and Spaniards have been captured. They had assembled into Church near St. John Lateran where they had performed some ceremonies of horrible wickedness which sullied the sacred name of matrimony, marrying each other and being joined together as husband and wife. 27 or more, it is said, were discovered altogether on other occasions, but this time they were not able to capture more than this eleven, who were given to the fire as they deserved.”

It’s important to note this clearly hostile ambassador says gay men were “marrying” each other, in 1578. Of course he didn’t like it, but they were doing it. I think it’s also important to note these homosexuals seemed to feel a religious blessing, presumably Christian in nature due to the chosen location, was valuable to their union, worth risking their lives over. To my mind, that could suggest some sort of greater organization in their immigrant community, but, when the ceremony alone meant burning to death, it would be hard to find such expressed openly, and so who knows?

In China it seems they created a separate institution for gay men. They were called nanfeng, meaning the “Southern Custom” (The term is a pun, as “nan” means man as well). Homosexual men would still marry women, so that Confucian duties would be accomplished, but their partners had some of the benefits of a married wife (if not better).

Consider this account by Shen Defu (1578-1642):

“The Fujianese men are extremely fond of male beauty. No matter how rich or poor, handsome or ugly, they all find a companion of their own status. Between the two the older is called the "bond elder brother" (qixiong), the youngest "bond younger brother" (qidi). When the elder brother goes to the house of the younger brother, the parents of the latter take care of him and love him like a son-in-law. And the younger brother’s expenses, including those of his marriage are all covered by the elder brother. They love each other and at the age of 30 are still sleeping in the same bed together like husband and wife….Such passions can be so deep that it is not uncommon that two lovers, finding it impossible to continue their relationship, tie themselves up together and drown themselves.”

So these couples are still pressured to marry women here and it seems there can be conflicts by which the gay union would be severed. But they’re also given access to another marriage-like institution of a different name (of course, the union between a man and a woman wasn’t called “marriage” either in 16th century China, if you’re the type terribly concerned with the word ;-)). Still, Shen recognizes it as very much like marriage (FYI, for those who need stronger evidence for homosexuality than sleeping together and strong passion between men, there is art from the period that shows some sexual interaction).

In the Americas there was a surprise waiting for the white man, and a far worse surprise waiting for the natives, particularly those who were GLB or T. Hernan Cortes (1485-1547 AD) reported to Charls V "we have learnt and been informed for sure that they [Vera Cruz natives] are all sodomites..." Certainly an exaggeration, but pottery backs him up in part. Nuno de Guzman, another conquistador, reported about a man captured in battle:

“[he] fought most courageously, was a man in the habit of a woman, which confessed that from a child he had gotten his living by that filthiness, which I caused him to burn.”

It doesn’t seem such conquerors got close enough to the locals to chat about their families; I doubt it mattered much to them. But Cabeze de Vaca, a Spanish explorer in the 1540s, reported regarding the inhabitants of an island off the coast of Texas, “In the time I was thus among these people, I saw a diabolical thing and it is that I saw a man married to another.”

In what is now Santa Barbara California, there’s a report even of a native convert to Catholicism, who, while living in the mission brought his husband to live with him. The head of the mission became suspicious and, along with a couple soldiers, entered their room to find them “in the act of committing the nefarious sin.” The male convert defended himself by saying they were married… I know; doesn’t sound like it’d go over too well as an excuse, but what innocence. Nevertheless, they were only “mildly” punished.

The missionary noted that each tribe had about two or three of such couples but “we place our trust in God and expect that these accused people will disappear with the growth of the missions. The abominable vice will be eliminated to the extent that the Catholic faith and all other virtues are firmly implanted there.” I’d bet the guy would be quite upset to know gay couples are being joined, at least in civil unions, in his very area.

We can find accounts of the rarer cases of lesbian unions South America. Pedro de Magalhales, a Portuguese explorer traveling through Brazil in the 16th century remarks on a group of female warriors in an encountered tribe:

“They wear the hair cut in the same way as men, and go to war with bows and arrows and pursue game, always in the company of men… Each has a woman to server her, to whom she says she is married; and they treat each other and speak with each other as man and wife.””

Other than that, the Mohave had hwame, females who would do a bit of both male and female work. They would be expected to take a woman as a wife, and, if that woman had children, the hwame would become their parent as well.

There is also the case of "Woman Chief". Edwin T. Denig, a Caucasian who lived with the crow and knew her for 12 years described her as always perusing “manly accomplishments.” She was adopted into the Crow tribe at a young age and she eventually took responsibility for her foster father’s lodge and family, as a bit of a war hero. She eventually took three wives (there’s a joke in there somewhere :-)), and was killed in a “peacemaking expedition” to another tribe.

In the Americas it’s important to note a couple things about these unions. Typically one partner in a male-male union was expected to take on a feminine role. Though there certainly are some exceptions in their recorded activities, such as the account of Osh-Tish, a renowned warrior as well as a bade, or so-called berdache or “two-spirit” person. These “two-spirit” tribe members are argued to be more like our modern “queens”: effeminate, artsy, ambiguously gendered, and so on; you know the stereotype :-). While merely tolerated in some tribes, many revered them as spiritually gifted and great matchmakers, bridging male and female worlds. There typically though was no special name or social standing for their spouses. Men could take a berdache as a spouce or, where polygamy was practiced, men could have women and these men as their spouces. I’d take it the men marrying the berdache are those we’d most closely refer to as gay or bisexual in our day. Regardless, it’s difficult to apply modern vocabulary to such a different time and culture.

In the end in the Americas, it seems, near all of that tradition was wiped out, by violence or subtler forms of coercion, such as religious threat and indoctrination through boarding schools.

Anyway, that’s all I’ve collected (that I can verify in the printed page) on gay unions in history. If anyone has another account of same sex couples marrying, please send them my way; I’d love to know of them.

Misuse

I just found this post again and want to put it up around Christmas, as that’s when the purported event was to have occurred, but before Christmas gets too close, for what will be obvious reasons :-).

I went through some gay western history (here, here, and here). This little bit comes in with the inquisition (the last post in that series). I also noted how the Sodom story was transformed into a gay story (here) and used to further the political and theological aims. But Sodom wasn’t enough for some.

Jesus was a problem. He was silent on the subject, strikingly to some of those wanting to act against gays. He also had all that “resist not evil” and “love your enemy” stuff, and backed up the inhospitality angle of Sodom. The best excuses for killing gays were in the Old Testament (along with laws most, even in the Church, were happy to ignore), and in the purported words of Paul, a non-perfect human, who advises against even heterosexual marriage. Something more was needed to justify the actions of the inquisition; Jesus needed to be tweeked.

That sort of extra something may be found in the Diccionario de los inquisidores (Translation from Compton’s Homosexuality and Civilization) (1494):

“The day of the birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ was prefigured according to Saint Augustine and Saint Jerome by the fire of Sodom, since all the sodomite in the world were annihilated on that night. The light was so potent that it destroyed all those who had engaged in that vice. It was the work of Christ.”

So why didn’t Jesus say anything about gays? Simple, because He killed them all the day of His birth, and there were little to no gays on which to comment. And, of course, now the Church of the time was justified in His example.

Odd no historian mentioned the immolating end of all those gay Romans ;-); even more odd and terribly sad that the inspiring image of the savior Christ child would be used in such a way.

The author, of course, couldn’t rewrite the Bible at this point and so it’s attributed to two revered saints, second best at the time I suppose. But no modern scholarship has found such opinion in the writings of either saint. Yet, this story was used to further justify the killing and torture of gays and was used in theological treatise as late as 1860.

Ugly Christmas story, to be sure, and I apologize for the image, but I think it’s important to remember such past. It's illustrative of how people claiming the moral high ground can make the most vile of sins shine like morality by wrapping them in such imagery. It’s happened in our recent past, and it certainly will happen again.

Defending Traditional Values From Radical Progressives

GLBT Western History
Part 3 of 3 (Part 1, Part 2)

In 1233 Pope Gregory IX set up the Papal Inquisition. From here, it’s a bit confusing as to who was a condemned homosexual and who was a condemned heretic; homosexuality had been tied so tight to being a heretic that the same word was often used for both. But in 1255 the Head of the Dominican order began aiming particularly for “sodomites”, a word that now meant what most think today, and in 1260 Bologna’s laws made the Dominicans officially responsible for hunting down homosexuals.

In 1252 Innocent IV okayed torture in inquisition trials, but it was not to be done by clerics; a layman must dirty their hands. In 1256 though, Alexander IV allowed clergy inquisitors to absolve each other for their acts of torture. Convenient, huh? They believed, sans doubt, and were thusly able to justify the horrible things they or their leaders did.

In the 14th century, we have the Templars, a monastic order of knights, under allegiance to the Pope. It’s debatable if even an abnormal number of them were gay men, or heretics, or simply on the wrong end of politics, but homosexuality and apostasy were the crimes of which Philip IV accused them, playing on popular rumors in what appears to be an attempt to gain power over the church. Pope Clement V (1264 1314 AD), under coercion and not wanting to be treated by Philip as his predecessor, Boniface VIII, had been, acquiesced and instructed the bishops and inquisitors to interrogate the Templars. Most of the “confessions” gained were eventually retracted, but many knights were quickly burned anyway and the Pope got rid of the Templars, in part for “the execrable outrage of sodomy”. Execrable…

The use of homosexuality against political obstacles is clearly realized by now.

While it is the state carrying out most all these sentences, and that does give some absolution to the RCC, the church and state can’t be separated here. The church would extract a sodomite’s confession and then, as they referred to it, “relax” him into the custody of the state executioner. Ostensibly they love the sodomite and are only doing what’s best for him, familiar sentiment. They were “helping” him get a far better chance at heaven, absolved and then quickly killed, and as a great example to others so afflicted. And if their faith was right it could be seen as moral: an infinitely tiny sliver of torment for an eternity of heaven. Who wouldn’t make that trade?

But good loving intentions about the supernatural don’t cut it. The church knew what the effects of their judgments would be and the laws of the state were clearly based in doctrine. In the Netherlands, for example, the punishment for “breaking the law of Octavianus [referring to the Lex Julia of Augustus criminalizing male relations] and Moses and the whole world” could be either 1. being burned 2. buried alive or 3. self-castration. In the Etablissements de Saint Louis (book 1 ch 90), it states “if anyone is suspected of bougrerie [homosexuality] the magistrate shall apprehend him and send him to the bishop; and if it is proved he shall be burned; and all his goods shall go to the baron.” The same fate is then given for heretics.

Also, again, “all his goods go to the baron.” Finding a “sodomite” (gay or not) meant a good deal of money at times, and it was used.

There are also the victims of incitement to mob violence that should be considered. In 1519 Luis Castelloli, a Franciscan Friar, in a fierce sermon, attributed a plague to homosexuality. The Friar did such a job that a mob formed. They burned 4 of 5 suspects alive (one was a member of the clergy and was initially given leniency, but was eventually strangled, then burned).

Then we get into the always-unexpected Spanish inquisition (1478 AD). The rights of secular bodies to do such things as burn homosexuals based on Papal claims were spelled out in the Directorium Inquisitorum, by Nicolas Eymeric. Here the church is said to be able to punish even the heathens violating “natural law”; the proof given is the now fully transformed Sodom story. It concludes, “the judgments of God are our example! Consequently, why should the Pope not proceed, if he has means, as God proceeds!” Why indeed? There is a strength in faith, but anyone can have it, feel its potency without doubt, and do horrible things with it.

In 1524 Pope Clement VII gave license to three tribunals set up to specifically try “sodomites” in the Spanish Inquisition, claiming “among the children of the infidels [the Moors] the horrendous and detestable crime of sodomy has begun to spread and that if these debased kinds of men are not isolated they can drag down the faithful into this corruption.” This of course was another useful political maneuver. Does it sound familiar? :-)

To his credit, Pope Clement VII did specify that typical inquisition rules did not apply to the edict, and thus local laws allowing for confrontation of witnesses and the forbiddance of torture were in play. But torture was still used and when objection to it was finally made in 1593, it was excused as “custom”.

By the end of the Spanish Inquisition it’s estimated 100 men were put to death for homosexuality, and on top of that are those tortured and receiving lesser punishments (only an estimated 1/5 were put to death). Also, that doesn’t count those put to death in secular courts for sodomy, which is estimated to be about 100 as well for the same period, placing the total around the number of protestant heretics killed (No, probably not as many as the reputation of the Spanish Inquisitions brings to the imagination, but enough to my mind to give the period its bad name).

The religious pageantry of the autos showcasing these punishments is a terrifying thing, if you can find a description. On top of those victims one must consider the countless others in secret fear for their lives, in the audience.

Briefly, in the new world, we’re told by the letters of Spanish explorers and missionaries that "sodomy", was common and far from unacceptable among the natives (pottery seems to back this up in part). Hernan Cortes (1485-1547 AD) reported to Charls V "we have learnt and been informed for sure that they [Vera Cruz natives] are all sodomites..." This was one of the justifications for their murder. We have depictions of the torture of such natives who had the misfortune of having their alleged "sodomy" come to the attentions of the Spanish conquerors. It’s, of course, another example of a political use.

I don’t want to take this too far into modern times, and so I’ll end with a record of same-sex marriages performed in Rome, in 1578. The Venetian Ambassador reported,

“Eleven Portuguese and Spaniards have been captured. They had assembled in a church near Saint John Lateran where they had performed some ceremonies of horrible wickedness which sullied the sacred name of matrimony, marrying each other and being joined as husbands and wife. Twenty-seven or more, it is said, were discovered altogether on another occasion, but they were not able to capture more than eleven, who were given to the fire as they deserved.”

These are humans wanting to marry each other, but ended up burning to a horrific death. They were burned alive, as so many others, and with so much callousness and with as much respect for their humanity as one would have for a stick on the fire. They may not of been too unlike R and me, and I can’t shake the fear and nausea of the idea.

On the upside, I think that pretty much sums up the difference in the times and points out how much the Christian faiths have evolved. Merely a religious ceremony of gay marriage meant being burned alive and you had much theological opinion backing up, inspiring, and encouraging the authorities. The world is changing; we should all, gay or straight, Christian or not, be grateful.

Creating a New Traditional Value For Gays

GLBT Western History
Part 2 of 3 (Part 1)

Picking up where the last post left off, Justinian became the Byzantine emperor around 527 AD. He commissioned the Code of Justinian, and it was finalized by 534. This body of law incorporated the 342 law of Constantine’s sons, once again making clear gay sex meant death for both partners. Record exists of this policy being implemented even upon two bishops. They were tortured and castrated (which most often in those times meant a protracted form of capital punishment). An 18th century historian, Edward Gibbons, who refers to homosexuality as a “moral pestilence” (just to know where he stands :-)), reported: “Justinian declared himself the implacable enemy of unmanly lust. In defiance of every principle of justice, he stretched to past as well as future offences for the operation of his edicts… A painful death was inflicted by the amputation of the sinful instrument, or the insertion of sharp reeds…” You get the picture.

Any compassionate human must be wondering, why? Well, those were cruel times, to start, but there were events to be explained. The devil, Sodom, sin, and the supernatural are very useful tools of government. For an example, after a series of natural calamities, Justinian gave his Novella 77 warning homosexual acts:

“incur the just anger of God, and bring about the destruction of cities along with their inhabitants. Therefore we order all men to avoid such offences as for crimes of this description cause famine, earthquake, and pestilence.”

Now, those are some good, supposedly scriptural explanations for why God sends calamity (as was even imagined recently regarding Hurricane Katrina), and they are also good reasons to scapegoat and kill homosexuals.

Two decades later, in 557 AD, Constantinople experienced a deadly quake followed by a plague. Seemingly in reaction, Novella 141 was created (559 AD) and put the blame on “Men-corruptors”. They were abused by nature and they act eerily similar to an abuse victim, as if spirits were listening in with God’s hammer at the ready:

“As we are always in need of the benevolence and kindness of God, and above all, at this time, when we have provoked Him to anger in many ways… Wherefore it would not be just for us to treat with contempt His abounding kindness, His tolerance, and His infinite patience, lest, avoiding repentance, our hearts may become hardened, and we may accumulate His anger upon our heads…there are persons who are guilty of abominable offences, which are deservedly detested by God. We have reference to the corruption of males, a crime which some persons have the sacrilegious audacity to perpetrate”

This justification of random tragedy in a city will become one of the repeating uses for the ever-present gay in any city, and the reason Sodom was best used after being morphed into a gay city. It’s not primarily because some people lie, or steal, or skip religious services, just like any man could. God did it to get at the gays hiding in our midst, the people who we, the majority, never have been nor will be nor ever wish to be. He wants to rid us of the sin we’ve no interest in, and we're just victims of "friendly fire".

Justinian’s rule is also recorded as one using gay-fear to raise money for the state. The mere accusation could be used to fill coffers. A specially appointed magistrate took the job of finding out gays, and his underlings would exhort money upon threat. Procopius records: “the subordinates would neither bring forth accusers nor submit witnesses…. the unfortunates who fell in their way continued, without having been accused or convicted, and with great secrecy, to be murdered as well as robbed of their money” No one whining about Habeas Corpus back then I suppose :-).
`
About 1000 AD we have Saint Damian, who wrote the Book of Gomorrah, calling homosexuality, again, the vice that “surpasses the enormity of all vices”. Wow, huh? Worse than anything else. This is also one of the early examples of the twins of 1. fascinations with and 2. abhorrence of gay sex. Seems Damian went in to uncomfortable detail as to what he imagined the “gay lifestyle” to be; it was for a good cause :-). On the upside, Pope Leo disagreed with the Saint’s harshness; possibly because the Book of Gomorrah was primarily attacking gays in the clergy.

To add to that, the revered Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 AD), again, holds homosexuality up as the worst of all sexual sins. You jail a man for rape because he harms another human, but homosexual sex is imagined to harm God and the law was bound to react.

Imagine all the other horrible things a human can do and then imagine how you have to bend your ethics to put adult consensual sex on top of all that. Why do it? To me it seems like a perfect storm: the pagan element, the OT with its own old reasons, the need for bodies to grow the RCC, the ick factor most people feel at the notion of such sex, the fact that it makes the majority feel more moral by not experiencing such “vial afflictions”, and the political use of having a perpetual minority to blame for natural calamities and even military failures. Not that people like Saint Thomas did such things purposefully, but they are a product of their culture, as we all are, and mobs can have amoral minds of their own.

Next, and lastly, the defense of traditional values...

Radical Progressives Assault Traditional Values

GLBT Western History
Part 1 of 3

As we all know, GLBT History Month is finally over (You all knew that, right? ;-)), and so I can now start posting on GLBT history, without feeling like I’m doing what I’m told. I think I’ll skim the darker side of western civilization and politics first, beginning a bit earlier from where my Sodom post left off. I’ll be using the same references also; Homosexuality and Civilization, by Crompton, mainly. I’ll take it from where gay love was an acceptable, tolerated part of western civilization to one of the lowest points for gays in our hemisphere.

This tale will be much like the Sodom and Gomorrah tale, about a gradual change, with some of the same player. I’m pretty sure I don’t need to quote Leviticus, and Romans. We all know what some of the writers of the Bible say (and have been manipulated to say) on the topic of gays. I’ll instead focus here on how these verses were used in the AD.

One could go all the way to some of the classical Philosophers to find significant evidence of the tide turning on gays around the Mediterranean. It seemed a certain asceticism had been gaining in popularity; many were tripping over themselves to be the most publicly austere in sex and other human pleasures (forgetting, of course, the human pleasure in that :-)).

Ironically Plato, for a popular example, himself known for his same-sex love, makes arguments against such love, in The Laws, his last work. Here the creation of a totalitarian fascist city is discussed, as being a practical next-best to the “Utopia” described in The Republic. Plato hopes to restrict all non-reproductive sexual activity, along with business, and the accumulation of private wealth, and ban travel and trade. He also calls homosexuality unnatural reasoning that it is not seen in other animals, a fact that is clearly false. I guess he never paid much attention to livestock, or knew many monkeys? But he will be quoted and used by future theologians hoping to add his name to justify their anti-gay argument (while, of course ignoring any pro-gay content in his writings).

Just barely stepping into the AD, we have the Jewish Philo, who you may remember from the Sodom post. To get an idea of how the culture was, we can read his complaint. He says "it [gay love] is now a matter of boasting, not only to the active but to the passive partner" in the Roman Empire.

Once the Church began to grow, Clement of Alexandria (~200 AD) becomes prominent. He similarly expressed anger that Roman law allowed gays to live openly and freely, and that it was almost obligatory to have male relations. His contemporary, Tertulian (155-230 AD) then gave one of the earliest records of a Christian hope to put the Levitical death penalty for gays into Roman law.

Public opinion was indeed changing, and like most rights, those for gays were eroded in increments. During the reign of the pagan emperor Severus (222-235 AD), the prolific Julius Paulus, and his colleague Ulpian handed out judgments lowering the social standing of the “passive” gay partner to “infamous”, a status that put him in league with gladiators, thereby limiting his right to vote and hold office. The right to practice law was also taken and certain inheritance laws were limited.

Once Constantine (272-337 AD) was in power and converted, these anti-gay opinions took a larger step, beginning with the killings of homosexuals in pagan cults. In fact, the campaigns against paganism and homosexuality were purposefully chained together, just as Paul had done in Romans. Around 300 AD, Firmicus Maternus, a Roman senator, was instrumental to this end. After his conversion, Mr. Maternus began an attack on all pagan religions, with his creation of The Errors of the Pagan Religions, his justification being Deut 13:

Along with his assault on the pagans, he purposefully links that culture war to homosexuality. For example, in his assault on the cult of the goddess Tanit, he complains about male priests “letting themselves be handled as women”, being “divorced from masculinity” and relishing in “dishonor of their polluted bodies”. They knew how to insult back then.

At this same time Constantine’s sons take the helm, and implement edicts giving “exquisite punishment” to the “passive” homosexual only, in 342. (If “passive” homosexual isn’t self-explanatory, I don’t know what to say :-)):

“When a man marries as a woman who offers yourself to man, what does he wish, when sex has lost its significance; when the crime is one which is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed into another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, a lot of the armed with an avenging sword, but those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment.”

Regarding this law, Senator Firmicus, of course, expresses his appreciation.

Theodosius (347-395 AD) stepped up the conflict. He made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire and began a strong, bloody assault on pagan faiths. He finally, in 390, implemented the full Mosaic Law condemning all male homosexuals to death, not merely the “passive” partner.

Early theologians helped out. In The City of God, 412 AD, St. Augustine (354-430 AD) is the first to make homosexuality the primary sin of Sodom, which set up the justification for future governments to rid themselves of gays as a means of pretended self-preservation from the same wrath of God. He also poses homosexuality as a crime against God, which will lead some future theologians to claim consensual gay sex should be dealt with more harshly than rape. After all, God, not some human woman, is a victim then… Um, Yeah…

I hope the importance of this move is not lost. It is not easy to get people to overlook their sense of ethics, the Golden Rule, without using some sort of sleight of hand, without offering them something in return. Here the evil of killing gays, who have no victims, is made to seem good by posing God as the victim. All the victims of natural disasters are also piled on, being a supernatural result of gays in our midst. In return, people get to feel like they are doing God’s will with a disposable and perpetual minority, and that they’ll get all the afterlife bonuses that faith tells them come with that; it’s a tool humanity uses to this day to get good people to justify wrong. Alas, the philosophers just get to sit back with their hands superficially clean of blood.

Now, there was initial pagan and social resistance to the new use of Mosaic Law, and one recorded related riot, a sort of grassroots swell of traditional culture warriors :-). Perhaps due to such controversy, the laws seem to have been weakly enforced at first. In reaction, Saint John Chrysostom, in 380 AD, complained about the “new and lawless lust” of homosexuality. New, Ha! He prodded the government to toughen the laws as “no one is afraid, no one trembles; No benefit comes from law courts.”

He’d get his wish. They’d tremble and burn in great displays.

Going beyond Saint Augustine, Saint Chrysostom makes homosexuality the only sin of Sodom. He called homosexuals “monstrous” and “satanic”, guilty of the most grievous sin, and their defenders “even worse than murderers.” You can find his sentiment resonating in some of today’s radio hosts, pundits, and “holy” men; I’ve even heard folks say heterosexual pedophilia is better, and that’s what they call morality... Anyway, the punishment he advocated was stoning.

Of course all these laws and purgings were too late. Homosexuality and paganism caused Rome to fall anyway ;-), around 476 AD, about a century and a half after Constantine’s rule, with Christianity long established as the state religion, other religions outlawed, a good deal of the population alienated and persecuted, and homosexuality made punishable by death. Funny how that happened.

And so soon after Christians were treated similarly harshly. Power corrupts even the most benevolent of philosophies… It's sad but true.

Next, Creating New “Traditional" Values.

Looking Back On Sodom

One of my pet peeves in the religious debate has to be found in the contemporary understanding of the Sodom and Gomorrah tale. Good thing I’ve got this soapbox here. (I’ll be using some of the Bible, Homosexuality and Civilization by Louis Crompton, and some online material, to which I'll link.)

Briefly, Sodom and Gomorrah (oddly means “ruined heap”; seems Gomorrah’s founding fathers had self esteem issues) were two cities about which God had heard horrible rumors, in need of confirmation (Gen 18:20-21). God presumably is set to destroy the city of Sodom if what He heard is true, but Abraham then talks Him into sparring it if some righteous people live there.

In the next chapter, two angels enter Sodom, and are shown hospitality by Lot, one of the few righteous locals. Hearing of these strange supernatural beings in their city, the townsfolk come to Lot’s house with the primary intent of raping the angels; they're so bad, it’s how they say “hello” in Sodom. Instead, Lot offers them his virgin daughters, whom they reject. At that, the angels then blind the men who consequently disperse, as they became “weary trying to find the door”. Finally the cities are destroyed while Lot’s family escapes. Though his wife is turned into salt for looking back on the work. In the end a disgraceful, drunken, and incestuous genesis for the genealogy of the Moabites and the Ammonites is posed with Lot as their progenitor.

Take that! You filthy red-rock love’n Moabites ;-).

So, why does this colorful story relate to homosexuality so strongly in the minds of the modern public? The story tells about a group of menacing men (and women and children by Gen 19:4), from a horribly wicked town who want to rape God’s angels and all most see today is homosexuality? Even if homosexuality were a sin, it’s as though a person runs down another in their car, and all anybody cares about is whether or not they first used their turn signal.

To top it off, the Old Testament’s own text details the sins of Sodom:

Ezekiel 16:49-50: Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

One may think, “Ah, Abomination!” but remember, at the time, eating crab, graven images, and sacrificing a not-quite-perfect animal to that same Hebrew God were “abominations”. It’s simply wrong to claim homosexuality was intended to be the issue in the Sodom story. But, if some rich guy robs and rapes a destitute angel while boasting and worshiping some half-donkey demigod with their mouths full of bread, then I’d be fine calling that “sodomy”.

So, how did this story morph into an anti-gay tract?

Gradually.

In the Apocrypha, Sodom’s sin is still primarily about pride and inhospitality (“inhospitality” is putting it lightly…). In the Pseudepigrapha (A likely source of Jude’s, as discussed below), Sodom’s sins become more about sexual misconduct, only loosely including homosexuality.

One of the first works in which Sodom becomes significantly about homosexuality is in Philo’s On Abraham (20 BC-40 AD). Here the sin is not much about pride and inhospitality anymore, but about indulgence in food, drink, and sex, which was proposed to be a result of their wealth. But still, these Sodom men became sex fiends, not what most call homosexuals; men, women, it didn’t matter (as most gays know, it matters :-)).

In the Antiquities of the Jews (94 AD), Josephus repeats the story of Sodom, seemingly with a bit of Philo's opinion (with whom Josephus was clearly familiar), but goes partially back to the pride/inhospitality angle:

"About this time the Sodomites grew proud, on account of their riches and great wealth; they became unjust towards men, and impious towards God, insomuch that they did not call to mind the advantages they received from him: they hated strangers, and abused themselves with Sodomitical practices. God was therefore much displeased at them, and determined to punish them for their pride, and to overthrow their city, and to lay waste their country, until there should neither plant nor fruit grow out of it."

Josephus then goes on to make clear the final straw was the attempted rape of the angels.

About this same time (not opening up that can of worms :-)), we have Matthew’s account of the word of Jesus:

Matthew 10:14-15: If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

Far from clear (Jesus is remarkably quiet on the subject), but this, of course, echoes the inhospitality angle of Ezekiel, to connect not being welcomed to this story.

The closest to a biblical homosexuality-Sodom connection is found late in the NT, in Jude (~65-120 AD), talking about “strange flesh” and fornication, but it comes after the evolutions made by Philo, and the apocryphal literature (which Jude cites). Besides, come on, it’s Jude, with all it’s baggage :-). It should also be noted that those sex crimes could reasonably mean anything from bestiality, to incest, to, as the actual story reports, attempted rape of angels. Still, I do think Jude does show a part of the sin of Sodom’s cultural evolution away from inhospitality towards sexuality.

Over the years, and beyond Jude, early Christianity picked up on the homosexuality angel, and the sins Ezekiel bemoans drop into the background, and if they were mentioned they were mentioned as symptoms of homosexuality in a community. It seems, Paul already saw the orientation as a curse for competing pagan religions (Rom 1:23-25), and those smoldering cities would be and become a great tool. Sodom became the example city, as it always was, but it became the example city with gays in it (And what city does not? The worth in this angle is clear, as I’ll go into later.).

In the 3rd century, Clement of Alexandria took a small step back and characterized Sodom’s sin as gluttony, in food and sex, gay and other, but St. John Chrysostom, in the 4th century, and St. Augustine, in The City of God (412 AD), made homosexuality Sodom’s unique sin. Now, the primary sin of Sodom wasn’t anything most reasonable folks call immoral today, like rape, or mistreatment of strangers. It wasn’t about crimes people do to each other or do at all, as much as it was about having a certain type of person in the city’s midst, people who “God gave up unto vile affections”, as Paul supposedly put it (Rom 1:26).

Playing on that paranoia found in making a Sodom-homosexuality connection with this perpetual minority has been valuable throughout history, and it continues to be so to this day in the form of some religious leaders and radio hosts. Within the week, I’ll go into how it was used in western civilization…

Disclaimer: I’m not one of those who thinks he can take the Bible, every literal bit, and make it into some 100% pro-gay manual. While it’s not as hostile as many would have you believe, there are certainly difficulties for the gay Christian, but I don’t think Sodom should be one of them.