Harris Himes, Obsessed Culture Warrior or Victim of “Homosexual Agenda”: Decide for Yourself

More verses for the Bittersweet Ballad of Harris Himes….

Harris Himes, a self-proclaimed pastor from Hamilton, has a history of ranting about the LGBT community’s responsibility for many things, including the supposed moral collapse of America and the eventual destruction of Western civilization. Therefore, it shouldn’t really be surprising that he is blaming the LGBT community, along with reproductive justice advocates, for the six felonies which he currently faces.

In late September, Montana’s Insurance Commissioner charged Himes with fraud and theft for an investment scheme that tricked a man in the Bitterroot Valley out of $150,000. After posting bail, Himes called a talk radio program and went on the attack. He said pro-gay activists were likely behind the charges. He also claimed the Insurance Commissioner was going after him for political disagreements they’d had in the past. Callers to the radio program responded by denouncing his baseless accusations. However, Himes was merely singing from the same hymnal he has used since appearing on Montana’s political scene.

Connected at the State and National Levels

Formerly an attorney in California, Harris Himes frequently identifies himself as both an attorney and pastor. The media recently reported on his claims to ordination by the Calvary Chapel. After a few years, he split from the chapel and proclaimed himself pastor of Big Sky Christian Center. A pastor with Calvary Chapel recently told the press: “But to call him a pastor isn’t accurate because he doesn’t have a church. There are accountability structures built into a church. He’s a self-proclaimed pastor….”

Regardless of his real or perceived pastor credentials, Himes has been active with a laundry list of Religious Right organizations in Montana. He’s been a board member for the Montana Family Coalition (which originally was the Christian Coalition of Montana). He is currently listed as a speaker for the Montana Pro-Life Coalition’s upcoming “Personhood Conference” in October. He’s testified at the Montana Legislature on behalf of the Big Sky Christian Center, Montana Values Alliance, and Montana Eagle Forum.

At the national level, Himes has served as voluntary counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which was founded by Religious Rights icons including James Dobson to “keep the door open for the Gospel in America.” Himes has also worked with the Liberty Counsel, which is affiliated with the late Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University. In other words, Himes isn’t just a rank-and-file member of Montana’s Religious Right. His connections reach into national circles, and he has been a leader and prominent lobbyist for its issues in Montana.

Over the past decade, Himes has frequented the Montana Legislature and testified that America was “founded on biblical principles” and that legislators needed to “have a bias to stand for God.” In other forums, he has stated America was better when people had to be Christian to run for office. He has also encouraged churches to get rid of their tax-exempt status so they can engage in open politicking.

While he has worked closely with numerous Religious Right activists in Montana, he has been most closely aligned with Ravalli County’s Dallas Erickson. He has been integral to Erickson’s attempts to pass anti-obscenity/censorship ordinances in Ravalli County. In 1999, the county passed the ordinances. However, a district court judge ruled they were unconstitutional. The Liberty Counsel represented the county, with Himes acting as the liaison. In 2002, the Montana Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by Ravalli County that sought to uphold the ordinances. The county has had to pay damages and court costs of some $70,000 in defense of Himes’ and Erickson’s religious campaign.

Hating the LGBT Community

During the 2011 Montana Legislature, Harris Himes told a legislative committee that the Bible commanded that gays be put to death, saying:

“The religious reason [to discriminate against the LGBT community] is God himself, who says that homosexuality is an abomination, and he has punishments for that…The punishment is this. If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death.”

He was testifying for House Bill 516 (Rep. Kristin Hansen, R-Havre) which would have repealed the Missoula Anti-Discrimination Ordinance and prohibited other localities from passing similar measures. The Missoula Ordinance outlaws discrimination against the LGBT community in the areas of housing, employment, and public accommodations. It is notable that, when Rep. Hansen submitted her initial file to Montana Legislative Services for drafting the bill, it included a handwritten letter from Dallas Erickson to the bill drafter. The note stated, “Rep. Kristen Hansen has given Harris Himes and I permission to work with you on LC1865 [which became HB 516].” Himes and Erickson were vocal opponents to the Missoula Ordinance, even testifying against it although they didn’t live in the City of Missoula. The note with the bill-draft request makes it clear that they were instrumental in bringing HB 516 to the legislature.

Himes’ “death to gays” comment was shocking to many people. However, it just echoed the many previous anti-LGBT comments he’s made. The following is nowhere close to being a comprehensive cataloging of his anti-gay diatribes. However, they provide a good overview.

During a 2003 legislative hearing to repeal Montana’s deviate sexual conduct law, which had been ruled unconstitutional a decade earlier, Himes compared the LGBT community to imprisoned drug dealers. He said neither group wanted the law to apply to them. He said homes where LGBT Montanans lived should be raided like drug dens.

Himes opposed attempts at the Montana Legislature to require the adoption of comprehensive bullying-prevention policies. In 2003, he said such a bill contained the words “sexual orientation” and, since being gay violated the Montana Constitution, it should be treated as a crime. In 2005, he said a bullying-prevention bill was part of the “homosexual agenda” to take over schools.

While opposing a 2003 hate crimes proposal, Himes stated that the protections in the bill would be a “sword against Christians who take the Bible seriously.” In opposing a 2009 hate crimes bill, Himes said he preached God’s word, and the bill would make him a “potential prison inmate” if it passed. Himes frequently mischaracterized hate crimes bills as attempts to limit his freedom of speech.

Himes has told legislators that there needs to be some discrimination against gays. He’s told them that “God is watching” and would punish them for their leniency toward “sexual deviants.”

During a 2006 Board of Public Education meeting about bullying-prevention policies, Himes claimed the policies create “whispering indictments” like the ones used to kill Jews during the Holocaust. He also stated the Montana Legislature defeated the proposed legislation, because the entire goal of preventing bullying was to advance the gay agenda.

Himes has a history of demonizing LGBT Montanans and blaming them for pretty much everything. He’s even done this in the absence of the LGBT community. During the 2005 legislative session, he opposed a bill and tried to link it to the “homosexual agenda.” His supposed proof—that LGBT supporters weren’t in the room. His claim that the LGBT community is somehow responsible for him facing felony charges has a similar level of “credibility.”

Hate, cont.

Oct6 by D Gregory Smith

And now it’s coming from a so-called Christian church.

The Westboro Baptist Church- known for their “God hates Fags” signs at military funerals, has decided to picket Steve Jobs funeral. The Tweet:

Classy.

Never any mention of grace, love or hope from these people- just shameless grandstanding in the name of an “angry, hating” God.

I’m pretty sure Jesus would throw up.

10 Things in 10 Years

Oct2 by D Gregory Smith

Ten Things I’ve Learned in Ten Years About Gay People| A Christian Perspective

By Kathy Baldock, Canyonwalkerconnections.com

September 29, 2011

In 2001, if you had asked me “Kathy, can you be gay and Christian?” I would have hedged a bit and fallen on the side of “No”. I did not have any close relationships with gay people nor had I ever studied the issue for in the Bible. I did not even know one gay Christian, that I knew of. It was from this paradigm that I formulated my opinions about the lives of gay people and made assumptions about their status with God. All that changed when I met Netto on a hiking trail. It has now ten years later and I offer ten things that I wish straight people, especially Christians, knew about gay people.

People who do not understand the views of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people are not all bigots and people who are fully affirming in their support of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender * people are not all heretics. This conversation often is relegated to love and hate, right and wrong, but there is a wide expanse between the two sides and that middle group is, for the most part, silent. You are the ones to whom I am offering these insights from experience, knowledge, study, relationship and with a genuine interest in engaging the too often silent middle.

With Bible in hand and in spirit, an open mind and heart and a willingness to listen to people, I entered the conversation that often brings out the worst in people. I hope to inspire you to movement and to speaking up with the Jesus-voice inside you.

Ten years and thousands of miles ago, I met Netto on a hiking trail. It was a time for conversation, the answering of all my stupid questions and an opportunity to get to know my Native American, agnostic, lesbian friend. Miles translated to trust for both of us and the growing relationship challenged my cultural Evangelical stances on homosexuality. My insights include a time line to show the long, thoughtful and prayerful process. These are ten things I have learned in ten years about the gay, lesbian and bisexual community, especially the Christian segment of that community.

1. Being gay is not a choice. In the US, we are almost evenly divided on the “are people born gay?” (42%) vs. “do they choose to be gay?”(44%) question . For the most part, how we answer this will dictate related views about inclusion in the church and civil rights for gay, lesbian and bisexual people. When individuals hold the “born gay” option as true, it is more probable that they are also supportive about extending equality to the gay, lesbian and bisexual people.

To the contrary, those who believe people “choose to be gay” most often see being gay as a “behavior” and not an intrinsic part of person’s being. Behaviors, they reason, are controllable and changeable and therefore, they conclude, sexual attraction is controllable, if not changeable. When sexual orientation is seen as a choice and a behavior, people are less likely to extend civil rights and inclusion in the church for gay, lesbian and bisexual people.

This one issue is the key and it took a long time and many relationships for me to understand. What you believe either unlocks the passage to equality or it keeps the door shut and segregates. It is the premise upon which most of the insights I offer builds.

There is no gene yet discovered for human sexuality, whether that be heterosexual or homosexual. Opinions formed in and out of relationships along with anecdotal evidence become the basis for each of our truths. Relationship. I write and say that word a lot, it matters.

I was raised in a moderately prejudice home in the New York City area; my stepfather was horribly biased against the black community. While he was recovering from cancer surgery, he roomed with a lovely elderly black man. After a week together in a hospital room, sharing experiences and interacting with this man’s family, my stepfather’s views about the black community changed. After six decades of bigotry, he saw this man as just another human. Relationship does that.

Similarly, for me and the 42% who believe that being gay is not a choice, that conclusion is the fruit of relationships and listening. Informed decisions based in information and experience are best, lacking that your opinion on this issue says nothing about your intelligence or your ranking on the “good person” scale. Without interaction with gay people, you may not understand that most gay people know between the ages of five and eight that they are “different”; this was a powerful message for me. Before a sexual thought ever occurs, they “knew”. Typically, it took another five years before they began to label the difference. When puberty kicked in, they noticed the comments and feelings of their friends did not jiving with their experiences. What followed was an average of another three and a half years of struggling in confusion for self-acceptance of being gay.

Being gay and sexual orientation are not as simple as “who you have sex with”. Sexual orientation speaks of an emotional, relational and sexual fulfillment and comfort. Gay people, just like heterosexual people, are attracted, at the core, to a gender at a young age. All of this is innocent and has no sexual overtones. As heterosexuals, when we recall a crush on a second grade teacher or the warm ease of being with a family friend, we never associate “sex” with it, yet we will often insert “sex” into the historical impressions of a gay person. Long before thoughts of sex enter a child’s brain, both heterosexual and homosexual children have a brain imprint of attraction. There is no choice for “behavior”. It is innate. Actually, 93% of mothers say they knew their gay sons were gay at an early age.

All this information bore out in the lives of people I met while with Netto. I started to meet people in long-term same-sex relationships that had never been romantically interested in the opposite sex, never. Others had been married and were parents. I had fallen into believing marriage to the opposite sex was “proof” of a person’s heterosexuality. Being married and bearing children do not mean one is straight. As one of my friends puts it, “It just means that you fantasize really well.” There are numerous reasons gay people marry the opposite sex:

They know they are “different” however exploring that difference is taboo and culturally or religiously unacceptable. Some people get married before they understand that they are not heterosexual.
They marry because it is expected, or they want a family
They are told they will change by getting married. Some people still believe the careless attitude of “All you need to do is find the right woman/right man and you will get rid of these feelings”. No amount of my being with women, and in the last ten years, with legions of lesbians,will or can make me a lesbian. Just as I am straight, about 5% of people are gay. (Situational sex in prisons does occur. This is NOT a change in orientation; it is a sex choice for convenience.)

The question of “born gay” or “choose to be gay” is the hinge of the rest of my insights. A few relationships with the lesbian coffee shop barista, your gay hairdresser or a neighbor as he passes you walking his dog will not help you honestly evaluate an entire class of people. Don’t rely on an equally uninformed pastor, politician or pundit, get to know people. Using uninformed opinions to decide on civil matters for a class of people is careless. Allowing those same distant opinions to influence spiritual “policies” is even more egregious. Do relationship, ask, listen and listen some more.

Read the rest here

Himes Rants Against…, well, Everybody

Sep30 by D Gregory Smith

The Missoulian today reports Harris Himes is ranting that gays, pro-abortionists and even State Insurance Commissioner Monica Lindeen probably got him thrown in jail.

Wow. If we gays were that powerful, I can think of a lot of other things we’d probably do first…

Excerpt:

Himes was charged with six felonies in Ravalli County Justice Court Wednesday after turning himself in to authorities. He said he’ll hire an attorney and posted bail of $10,000 shortly after the hearing.

Himes was required to surrender his passport and will next appear in District Court on either Oct. 6 or Oct. 20.

He didn’t keep a low profile after leaving the Ravalli County jail, though.

Peter Christian of KGVO radio’s “Talkback” show mentioned the charges against Himes on Thursday morning and Himes called in to respond. He told Christian he is an attorney, but knows better than to represent himself.

Himes went on to claim that gay and pro-abortion activists may be behind the charges against him and co-defendant James “Jeb” Bryant, another self-proclaimed pastor.

Himes further claimed that State Insurance Commissioner Monica Lindeen may also be behind the charges because of political disagreements they’ve had in the past. Other callers quickly, and forcefully, called him out for making groundless accusations.

This could get interesting. I’ve had a friend say this may prove that he is clinically mental- just as I wondered yesterday. Or maybe he’s playing that card early.

Hmmm.

Full story here.

The Bittersweet Ballad Of Harris Himes

Sep29 by D Gregory Smith

As I pointed out yesterday, Harris Himes, preacher of anti-gay hate, Christian Pastor, Montana Eagle Forum President and lobbyist, has been charged with six felonies, including theft, fraudulent practices and conspiracy to commit same.

Himes turned himself in yesterday. No word as of yet about the other named pastor, “Jeb” Bryant.

It’s a bittersweet moment for me.

Harris Himes has a long history of opposing human equality- and democratic process. He was a constant figure at the legislature last Spring. He consistently showed up to publicly bristle at any mention of gays or discrimination or equality. I testified against HB 516, introduced by Rep Kris Hansen of Havre, which would disallow any city ordinances prohibiting discrimination. Himes testified for it. I found his logic deeply disturbing, his scripture scholarship crude, his arrogance and obvious multiple phobias clinically amazing. I found myself wondering how we both met Jesus and came away with two very different understandings of his message.

I now think I know.

If Himes is guilty, it means that he separates personal and public morality in a way that’s of personality disorder proportions. If he’s guilty, it means that he has a narcissistic ability to separate himself from the message of morality he presents as a pastor in the Christian tradition. He’s exempt. If he’s guilty, it’s more than simple hypocrisy- it means that the Ten Commandments have not been internalized- they don’t apply to him. Arguably, there are many interpretations to the scriptures, but most scholars agree that when it is written,”Thou Shalt Not Steal” there’s really not much wiggle room.

It’s a lot like the bully in Glee- he pounds away at the thing that he’s most afraid of- the gay part of himself. We hate most in others what we fear most in ourselves.

Now I’m not suggesting Himes is gay- not by any means. But I am suggesting that, again, if he’s guilty, his displaced guilt about his own immorality was redirected toward hate and intolerance of LGBT persons and any legislation protecting them. A deflection from his own dubious morality.

If he’s guilty.

Now here comes the bittersweet part: I also feel sorry for the guy. I can’t help it.

If he’s able to separate himself so completely from his message, then he probably has a mental illness. He probably hasn’t formed life-giving attachments in his life. He probably never progressed very far developmentally- the tormented kid on the playground who becomes the bully when he has a little bit of power- and religion gives pastors more than just a little bit. The cycle of abuse, continued.

It’s sad.

Part of me wants to sing “Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead”, dance in the street and gloat over the obvious ridiculousness and hypocrisy of the downfall of a vocal bigot. Another part of me is appalled at the very idea of that. Mostly because Harris Himes would probably do that very thing if (God forbid) it was someone from the ACLU or MHRN who was charged with six felonies.

And I want to be better than that. I really do. That’s why it’s bittersweet for me.

Because if I lose sight of the humanity of my adversaries, there is little hope of them ever gaining sight of my humanity. And we need to see each other as human beings- as difficult as it is sometimes.

That’s how we win.

All of us.

MT Anti-Gay Preachers On The Run

Sep28 by D Gregory Smith

Read all about it here.

Hans Kung: “Pope as Putin?”

Sep26 by D Gregory Smith

Yes, the question is asked- among many other (to me) more fascinating things in the Swiss theologian’s interview with Der Spiegel. Excerpt:

SPIEGEL: More than a year ago, you wrote an open letter to all bishops in the world, in which you offered a detailed explanation of your criticism of the pope and the Roman system. What was the response?

Küng: There are about 5,000 bishops in the world, but none of them dared to comment publicly. This clearly shows that something isn’t right. But if you talk to individual bishops, you often hear: “What you describe is fundamentally true, but nothing can be done about it.” It would be wonderful if a prominent bishop would just say: “This cannot go on. We cannot sacrifice the entire Church to please the Roman bureaucrats.” But so far no one has had the courage to do so. The ideal situation, in my view, would be a coalition of reformist theologians, lay people and pastors open to reform, and bishops prepared to support reform. Of course they would come into conflict with Rome, but they would have to endure that, in a spirit of critical loyalty.

SPIEGEL: That’s what led to the Reformation 500 years ago. But at the time, the Roman system was incapable of understanding the criticism from within the ranks.

Küng: After 500 years, we are surprised that the popes and bishops of the day did not realize that a reform was necessary. Luther didn’t want to divide the Church, but the pope and the bishops were blind. It seems that a similar situation applies today.

This man occupies a secure place in my pantheon of heroes…. Full, fascinating interview here.

Michele Bachmann, (Submissive) Theologian?

Aug19 by D Gregory Smith

Michele Bachmann has championed the “Christian” cause, sprinkling her speeches with scripture and holy buzzphrases. But one in particular caught my ear.

During the Iowa Republican Debate, Bachmann was asked about whether she would be submissive to her husband. She slipped right out of her earlier statements (and any fundamentalist credibility) when she basically said, “in our house, submission means respect”.

But what did Paul mean when he wrote, “Wives, submit to your husbands as is fitting in the Lord” in his letter to the Colossians? Or Peter, when he wrote “Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands…” in the First Letter of Peter?

It comes from the tradition which Paul amplified in his letter to the Ephesians:

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. (NIV) Ephesians 5.22-24

Pretty clearly not simple, mutual respect. Maybe another translation will help. Let’s try the King James:

²²Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. ²³For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.²⁴Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Nope, still clearly hierarchical. Paul is speaking from a clearly patriarchal tradition here- one where the husband is the head of the family, the boss, the Pope, the King- those are the images he uses here.

And they are meant very specifically and clearly: wives are the subjects of their husbands, as the church is subject to Christ. As a serf is subject to a king. Not partner, not even helpmate. Subject.

Not that I think this is right, proper or correct. My understanding of Christian scripture is quite different- and I take an anthropological/interpretive approach- not a fundamentalist one. But if you’re going to proclaim to have fundamentalist Christian leanings- you have to be consistent. The first century church was a product of its time- patriarchy was all the rage- and I think we’ve evolved beyond it. Well, mostly. But if Michele Bachmann is going to quote scripture, she can’t just pick and choose what it means. She can’t back off of it and maintain any integrity with/for her Christian base.

But she did. And she has. And the media is letting her. CBS News:

AMES, Iowa – Appearing on “Face the Nation” Sunday, Rep. Michele Bachmann stood by her comment in Thursday’s Republican debate, insisting that when she said wives should be submissive to their husbands, she meant that married couples should have mutual respect.
In 2006, Bachmann said her husband had told her to get a post-doctorate degree in tax law. “Tax law? I hate taxes,” she continued. “Why should I go into something like that? But the lord says, be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.'”
Asked about the comment by CBS News’ Norah O’Donnell Sunday, Bachmann reaffirmed that to her, “submission means respect, mutual respect.”
“I respect my husband, he respects me,” she said. “We have been married 33 years, we have a great marriage…and respecting each other, listening to each other is what that means.”
O’Donnell asked Bachmann if she would use a different word in retrospect.
“You know, I guess it depends on what word people are used to, but respect is really what it means,” Bachmann replied.
“Do you think submissive means subservient?” O’Donnell asked.
“Not to us,” Bachmann said. “To us it means respect. We respect each other, we listen to each other, we love each other and that is what it means.”

Look at the story she uses to illustrate her point: Marcus Bachmann told her to get a degree in something she hated– and she did it because- according to a fundamentalist interpretation of scripture- she is his subject. She must submit to him. She later rejected this, saying it equals respect.

Well, maybe in the way a serf respects the King who holds power over him/her. But let’s keep looking. Hey! Maybe the dictionary will mention respect.

submissive
sub·mis·sive
–adjective
1.inclined or ready to submit; unresistingly or humbly obedient: submissive servants.
2.marked by or indicating submission: a submissive reply.

Okay, that didn’t do much for her case, either. Hey, maybe the Greek will help! What was the word in the Bible the writers actually used? Maybe that means respect…

“In the first instance, then, hupatassomai does not mean so much ‘to obey’—though this may result from self-subordination—or to do the will of someone but rather ‘to lose or surrender one’s own rights or will.¹³⁶ In the NT the verb does not immediately carry with it the thought of obedience … ¹³⁷

The idea implicit in the term is “to place under” (in the active voice).¹³⁸ As it is found in our text, the idea would be, “to subordinate oneself” or “to place oneself under.” In general terms, submission is the placing of oneself under the one to whom we submit. Since we are commanded to submit ourselves one to another, we are to place all others above ourselves. (source)

Whoops. Even worse.

Sorry, Michele. Looks like if you want to maintain scriptural consistency- and your fundamentalist/evangelical/christianist street cred, you’re going to have to say submit, subject to, submissive, surrender.

Presidential words, indeed.

Majority of Montana Voters Support Same-Sex Domestic Partnerships

Jul30 by D Gregory Smith

No, seriously- Welcome!

I mentioned this in passing yesterday, but a newly released poll shows that a majority of voters in Montana support domestic partnerships for same-sex couples. That poll, conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research for the American Civil Liberties Union, found that 53 percent of Montana voters favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into domestic partnerships.

“Support of same-sex domestic partnerships is growing, and now we can quantify what our day-to-day interactions with people are telling us,” said ACLU of Montana LGBT Advocacy Coordinator Ninia Baehr. “It’s heartening to know that people understand that every loving and committed couple who pays taxes in our state deserves fairness.”

The change in attitude mirrors an increase in the number of same-sex couples in Montana reporting their households to the U.S. Census Bureau. Recently released numbers show 2,295 same-sex households in the 2010 Census – a 54 percent jump since 2000.

Key Highlights of 2011 Polling

Most Montanans favor domestic partnership. By a 13 point margin, voters in Montana favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into domestic partnerships – 53 percent favor, 40 percent oppose. There is more intensity among those who favor; 35 percent strongly favor, while 29 percent strongly oppose.
More than half of Catholics (55 percent) favor domestic partnerships, including 36 percent who strongly favor allowing domestic partnerships. This measure also wins the support of nearly half (47 percent) of seniors, a majority of older women (54 percent), and blue collar women (52 percent).
Support for domestic partnerships seems to be increasing. A 2008 survey conducted by Lake Research Partners asked voters a four-part question asking them to choose between traditional marriage, marriage with another name, civil unions, and no legal recognition. The survey found that 33 percent of Montanans thought that gay and lesbian couples should have the same right to marry as straight couples, or should have the same right to marry but it should not be called marriage.2
Voters recognize discrimination against gays and lesbians. A 47 percent plurality believe gay people in Montana face a lot of discrimination; only 38 percent think that gays and lesbians in the state do not face much discrimination.

People understand that the lack of legal recognition of same-sex relationships leaves couples extremely vulnerable. In Montana examples of unfairness toward same-sex couples include a woman who was denied bereavement leave when her partner’s father died, and another woman who lost her home because she was ineligible for worker’s compensation death benefits when her partner was killed in an accident.

“Same-sex couples have told us time and again that they are meeting more and more people who sympathize with their plight,” said Baehr. “This polling reinforces the growing support those couples have been experiencing.”

While it’s not exactly marriage, I’ll take it. For now.

This shows the evolution of the Montana voter’s attitude is in favor of eventual, full equality-and this change in attitude has a cause. This is happening because more of us are simply visible as co-workers, neighbors, children, siblings and friends. We are not a threat, we’re just people.

I’m particularly impressed with the Catholics- and not surprised, really. This is about social justice for us- not particularly about morality. Even though the hierarchy is deeply out of touch on this issue, this is a reminder that the sense of the people in the pews is leading the church here. My mother would have agreed- I know the rest of my Catholic family does.

In the eyes of Montanans, “The Gays” are slowly changing from scary bogeymen into recognizable human beings. Never underestimate the power unleashed by broken closet doors….

More info here.

Gays, Marriage Polls, Jesus and Sally Kern

Jul29 by D Gregory Smith

From the Washington Post:

As New York gears up for its second weekend of same-sex nuptials, a Washington Post-ABC News poll finds Americans split 50 to 46 percent over whether the state’s law legalizing such unions is a positive or negative outcome. Reactions to the new legislation — like support for legalizing gay marriage in general — range tremendously across generational, political and religious lines.

Americans have grown increasingly accepting of same-sex marriage over the past decade, according to surveys by The Post and ABC,Gallup, the Pew Research Center and others. The public opposed legalizing gay and lesbian unions by a 58 to 36 percent margin in 2006, but the new Post-ABC poll finds a slight majority — 51 percent — saying such marriages should be legal.

New Yorkers- and Americans in general are increasingly favoring marriage equality. A majority of Montanans now favor domestic partnerships. It’s becoming more clear that there is no threat from the “Gay Menace”. In fact, Virginia, there is no Gay Menace- and no threat.

It is worth noting, however, that the biggest statistical groups who view marriage equality as “Negative” come from “Conservative Republicans” (71%) and “White Evangelical Protestants” (71%).

Most of the weird, anti-gay vitriol comes from “conservatives” (notable exception: Ruben Diaz). The ignorant and hateful things Montana legislators have said on record have been well-documented here and on other sites (not so much in the Montana newspapers) and, you guessed it- they come from elected Republicans.

I have also noticed an element of religious righteousness when the conversation takes place with many “conservatives” whether in person, on tv or the radio. Maybe you’ve noticed it, too. I heard it last night on CNN when some Congressional Representatives had to go “pray about” the debt ceiling vote. Now I’m all for prayer, but they seem to be forgetting Matthew 6.5-6…. The point I’m struggling to make here, is that there is an element here that will not give in– not to science, not to reason, not to compassion, not to anything but radical fundamentalism. For them, that would be abandoning God’s Word- and for a fundamentalist/biblical literalist that means Hell- the ultimate fear meme. It’s that faction that concerns me. And it seems to be safely ensconced in the Republican Party.

A perfect example is Oklahoma Republican legislator Sally Kern, who had this to say about gay persons on July 27th:

To me what is hateful is when those people who say ‘you’re born this way, there’s no hope in change, you’re stuck in this, deal with it,’ that is hate. There’s no hope in that…

We’re losing our freedom of conscience. And if the homosexuals get what they want, and as you said it’s not just homosexuality, its immorality or adultery, all of that, but in my opinion the homosexual movement is the tip of the spear. They’re the ones who right now are beating down the door, have their foot in the door, trying to tear down the moral fiber of America. We have to stand up to that. The reason it’s the tip of the spear- you don’t see ‘Adulterers Victory Fund’ out there trying to promote adultery. God’s people got to stand up to this. (emphasis mine)

Here’s what’s disturbing to me about this: She can say these ignorant, hateful things in public, under the protection of free speech-and feel righteous and supported in doing so. Without serious repercussions from her party or other conservatives. In fact, they’ve been portraying themselves as victims. (seriously, watch this) I would love to hear an elected conservative make an “It Gets Better” video. None have done so. I would love to hear the uproar from thoughtful conservatives against the unreasonable lines of thought and logic. It doesn’t happen. Maybe a few gasping voices- but no uproar. That’s a fact.

I don’t want to bash- it’s not productive, but I do want to ask the question: Where are the reasonable voices for equality in the Republican Party? Why don’t we hear from them as much as Sally Kerns or Ann Coulter?

I have strong feelings about Christian Fundamentalism. I am firmly convinced that the enormous richness of scripture- and the whole Christian Tradition- becomes diluted with simplistic personal interpretations and wanton literalism. The Bible is a complex and varied collection of documents and literature- it is not to be simplistically reduced to quick and glib personal statements. Broad themes can be construed, yes, but not without a great deal of thought and research. And most scripture scholars would agree.

I have spent a great deal of my life studying the words and works of Jesus Christ. I have read the Bible- a lot. I have studied scholarly interpretations of scripture and worked with experts in the field- I have three degrees in theology, in fact- and I have never, not once, found a reason to believe Jesus would ever condone this sort of ignorant, non-loving nonsense. That’s not the Jesus I know and love. That particular Jesus is a creation of very frightened, and perhaps even, unenlightened people.

The real Jesus was interested in showing the love of God. He lived for mercy, justice and peace. He died for compassion and integrity and truth. I believe he’s interested in my truth. Not only interested but invested in it. And my truth is this: I am a man who simply wants to love and be loved according to my created, inborn nature- an inborn nature I spent years questioning, examining and reflecting upon.

That’s all. It’s quite simple really. I’m just asking the world to trust the reality of my experience. Arguably, the people I’m speaking of could say the same thing- but I would argue that they’ve abandoned experience in favor of biblical literalism.

There’s also this difference between us: my worldview doesn’t condemn anyone else to eternal fire and damnation. It doesn’t threaten anyone else at all, really. People like Sally Kern may think they’re being threatened, but I think they’re just scared- too scared to look at the reality of life with open hearts. Their hearts are set in stone- immovable, inflexible, afraid.

That’s not the way I want my heart to be. I want it to be open and accepting and generous and kind. I’m happy to let other people give love and receive love wherever they can. Without limits. Because that’s how I believe it works best.

And the good thing? The American People are starting to think so, too.