Here is a great fable explaining about attitudes to same-sex marriage. Pass it on to anyone uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage.
I've included the comments, cuz a few are good.
Find it here: http://www.owldolatrous.com/?p=369#comment-2948
--Kim

Owldolatrous
(owl-dol-uh-truhs) adj: 1. Devoted to Wisdom. 2. Proverbs 11:2

Aesop to the Right: Why I Believe Bristol Palin

Aug 09 2012

In response to my Chick-Fil-A essay, I got a lot of letters kind of like this one.

"Thought I'd humbly give you some of my conservative Christian perspectives. My support of Chickfila [sic]…would have been based on the idea of supporting a…company with a founder who speaks for what seems to be the minority these days.

"In other words, I specifically feel BASHED by the general media and liberal establishment and gay activists for simply being a Bible-believing Christian. From TV shows, movies, mainstream news and music, so much is Intolerance of my conservative beliefs. I am labeled a HOMOPHOBIC and a HATER. Jumping to extreme language and extreme conclusions…serves only to stir up more irrationality around our disagreements.

"I neither fear nor hate homosexuals. I am trying to understand what it is to see life from your perspective. America is (was) a great place for liberty to speak our beliefs. It's the dialogue that balances us and keeps one group from becoming a tyrant.

"I do not support the gay activist agenda which seeks to silence people like me." – [Name Withheld]

The answer you must normally get from LGBT supporters like meand it's an answer that I normally giveis that trying to get our equality is not the same as trying to silence you. Tolerance is a two-way street and it doesn't work if you're passing laws that block one whole lane.

I said in my initial post that I don't mind Cathy saying what he has to say. What I mind is him giving to harmful groups that contribute to inequality and to an atmosphere of violence against gays. This article should make that connection clear.

But I have a feeling that this answer won't satisfy you. I must honor that you legitimately do feel like a silenced minority, and that you do feel persecuted by the mainstream of society. Your views have been called homophobic and hateful, and I believe you feel truly wounded by this.

You are not alone. Your letter expresses a sentiment I've read from many respondents over the past few days, and one shared by such notables as Bristol Palin, who said yesterday, while discussing whether she'd mind a gay dance partner on Dancing with the Stars:

"I like gays. I'm not a homophobic and I'm so sick of people saying that. Just because I'm for traditional marriage doesn't really mean I'm scared or anything of anyone else, and I don't hate anybody."

Later, in a blog post, she continued:

"If I can't dance with Mark [Ballas], I'd love to dance with a gay partner, a straight partner, or anything in between.

"But the media can't seem to figure this out. In their simplistic minds, the fact that I'm a Christian, that I believe in God's plan for marriage, means that I must hate gays and must hate to even be in their presence."

Bristol Palin's words seem to echo the sentiment you express. I'm going to address those feelings today, but it's not going to be easy.

This is an emotional topic that's difficult for anyone to face, and the loaded vocabulary that surrounds this issue makes things even worse. I have to admit I'm afraid of alienating you by even talking about it.

But I don't think we can talk about what you've said here without recognizing something that's fundamental to the issue yet so hard to see or explain. I'm a storyteller, so the easiest way for me to approach this is with a story. It's the only way I know to address some of these things without resorting to words that hurt or offend, or shut down discussion.

Fast friends after "Net Equality."

The Lion and the Mouse II: This Time, It's Personal

Remember Aesop's fable of the Lion and the mouse?

The Lion caught the Mouse, but the Mouse pleaded for his life, so the Lion let him go. Later, the grateful Mouse saved the Lion's life by gnawing through a hunter's net.

But the story didn't end there.

After the incident that they jokingly called "Net Equality", the Lion and the Mouse became fast friends.

The Lion enjoyed the Mouse's antics, sense of humor, and crazy stories about his exciting life in the Jungle's underbrusha world the Lion could never really explore.

The Mouse enjoyed the Lion's regal nature and comparatively calm existence, and it was fun telling his fellow mice that he was friends with the King of the Jungle.

Every eleven years, the time came around for the Kingdom's Ball. And, as King, it was the Lion's job to host it.

He invited everyone, even the animals that always ruined the party (the Rhinoceros always trampled up the floors, the Salmon drank like a fish, and the Kangaroo always slipped some of the good silver into her pouch)–everyone, that is, except the Mouse.

The Mouse was understandably confused. "Why am I not invited?" he asked the Lion.

"Mice are never invited to these things. It's a rule," explained the Lion.

"But you're King of the Jungle. You can change the rules," the Mouse replied.

"I can't make an exception for you just because you're my friend."

"But you are making an exception of me. I'm the only one not invited!"

"Listen," the Lion said. "Let's just let this go. I'm not as popular a king as I used to be, and I need this to go well."

"I want to know why I can't come. Tell me! Tell me!"

"Because you disgust them!" roared the Lion.

"…Oh," squeaked the Mouse.

The Lion's demeanor softened. "Some of them. But you don't disgust me. Listen, it's just some dumb party. Why do you even want to go?

"It's not just that I want to go; it's that you don't want me there. Why are you going if I can't go?"

"Because I'm a lion and you are a mouse. I'm sorry, little friend. Good talk. I'll see you after the party."

And, with that, the Lion turned and walked away.

The story continues, but let's stop and notice some things. The way I see it, in terms of power in this country, conservative Christians are the Lion; we LGBT folks are the Mouse.

I know you may not feel this way, but remember:

- It's not illegal to be a conservative Christian in any state, never was, and never will be, thanks to the Constitution. Until a Supreme Court ruling 2003, gay sex was actually illegal in many states.

- Conservative Christians enjoy the full equality and protection of the law, including marriage and employment protections. You can't be fired for being a Christian. I can be fired for being gay. Here's a breakdown of the legal struggles that LGBT people face in every state.

- Conservative Christians may get "bashed" in the media. LGBT people get actually, literally bashed, sometimes to death. It's an epidemic and it's on the rise. Here are some hate crime statistics for you to peruse.

- Conservative Christians form a powerful, organized, well-funded voting bloc that has helped to keep marriage equality and other equal rights provisions off the table for LGBT people in many states.

As a person who identifies as both gay and Christian, I do understand that Christians can sometimes face social sanction. I will recognize that being a Christian isn't always easy and that it hurts when municipalities level consequences at people who speak their minds. I certainly understand.

Did you know that Tennessee introduced a bill making it illegal even say the word "gay" in public schools? Yes. I understand.

But it's important for you to recognize that there is a vast difference between facing ridicule or even occasional civic rejection, and facing systematic social and political inequality. There is a vast difference between being told you're superstitious or old-fashioned and being told you're an abomination that doesn't deserve to live. There's a vast difference between being told you're acting hateful and being told God hates you.

I've been gay and Christian all my life. Trust me: Christian is easier. It's not even close.

I'm the Mouse.

You're the Lion.

So let's continue:

The Mouse has three grievances with the Lion.

1. Despite his claim that the other animals are the ones with the problem, the Lion's failure to act on behalf of his friend makes him functionally identical to the other animals.

Worse, the Lion fails to see or admit the basic power inequality in their friendship and, therefore, in their debate. The friendship and the debate allow the Lion to feel generous and open-minded without having to actually do anything.

2. The Lion ultimately has no rationale for excluding the Mouse other than tradition, visceral disgust, and appeal to his own fundamental difference from the mouse ("I am a lion and you are a mouse").

3. The Lion is so blind to his own privilege that he can't see why the Mouse even wants to attend. "It's just a party," says the Lion, "why do you even want to go?" But it's not just the party but the fact of his having to vainly plea for inclusion that is so hurtful to the Mouse.

But what about the Lion? Does he have grievances? Surely he's annoyed that the Mouse keeps asking to go where he's not wanted. The Mouse is awfully prideful to try to get the Lion to change the rules just for him. And he put the Lion in the awkward position of having to explain to the Mouse that some animals find him icky.

But does the Lion hate the mouse? Is the Lion afraid of the mouse?

What I want to recognize here is that Bristol Palin is probably right, and so are you.

I don't think you hate me. I certainly don't think you're afraid of me. Neither is Bristol Palin. She probably even has LGBT people she calls friends. She just disagrees with them about whether they should be invited to the party (the party, in this case, being marriage).

But here's the problem: the basis of that disagreement is her belief that her relationships are intrinsically better than ours.

There's a word for this type of statement: supremacist.

Wait, wait!

Bear with me here.

I know that the word "supremacist" makes you think of "White Supremacists," which makes you think of the KKK and cross-burning and lynching. We think of supremacist as a Southern thing, a rural thing, a racial thing, a militia thing, a hate thing.

Here, maybe this will help:

I've had supremacist habits too.

I grew up in the rural South. I never hated African-Americans. I never knowingly said or did or voted in any way that hurt African-American people. I even had African-American friends. But I'd be lying to you if I didn't admit that some white supremacy seeped into my thinking at a very young age.

This is a painful thing to admit. Even now, I find I can't go into specifics, from sheer shame. Fortunately I have been able to break those habits, but it has taken a while.

Supremacy is the habit of believing or acting as if your life, your love, your culture, your self has more intrinsic worth than those of people who differ from you.

Supremacy can be about race, but it doesn't have to be.

Supremacy and hate aren't identical, but they often go together.

Some people turn supremacy into an over-arching philosophy. For most, it's just a habit of mind. As a habit of mind, supremacist ideas can spring up in anyone. Being liberal doesn't make you immune. Being gay doesn't make you immune. Being a minority doesn't make you immune.

You don't have to hate people to feel innately superior to them. After all, what kind of threat are your inferiors to you? You may be annoyed by them, from time to time, or you may even like them. You can even have so much affection for them that you might call that affection love.

Because they don't have to be said in anger, supremacist statements aren't only the purview of the "God Hates Fags" crowd. The dangerous thing about a supremacist point of view is that it can accompany even warm affection.

Now understand: I'm not saying you're a supremacist, but your letter, polite as it is, does betray a somewhat a supremacist point of view.

Your letter shows:

1) An sense of comfort with yourself as an appropriate judge of my choices, ideas, or behaviors. You think you have to see my point of view or agree with me in order to support my equality. The fact is, you can support my equality under the law even if you disagree with me completely.

2) An unwillingness to appreciate the inherent inequality in a debate where I have to ask you for equality. To you, even entertaining the idea of my equality is a gesture for which I should be grateful. To me, it's an indignity that I even have to ask.

3) An unwillingness to acknowledge the stake that you have have in your feeling of superiority rather than blame it on God. To be fair, I'm really addressing Bristol Palin, right now, not you, since you didn't talk about God or scripture in your letter. Rather than simply say "I prefer to think of myself as superior to gays", Ms. Palin selectively employed her interpretation of Christian religious teachings to disguise her motivations.

For example, despite her claims, there simply is no Biblical basis for "god's plan for marriage" as it exists today. Almost nothing about marriage today is Biblical. If you don't believe me, take a look at this.

Truthfully, among all the condemning letters I received, no one even tried to make a coherent Biblical case for marriage as it is practiced today. No one tried because no one thought they had to.

Bristol Palin finds it self-evident that she's better than me, and uses a vague appeal to "God's plan" to strengthen that bias.

That's hetero-supremacy. It's the belief, unsupported by science or scripture, that heterosexual people are inherently better than LGBT people.

But don't feel singled out.

Hetero-supremacy is all over the place. It's all over the LGBT community. It's all over TV, books, and magazines, even LGBT-centered ones. It affects what we find attractive and what we find repulsive. It affects how we behave toward people, how we feel about them, and how much we respect them.

And, of course, it's all over the news:

- American Family Association spokesperson Bryan Fischer yesterday endorsed kidnapping children from their Gay or Lesbian parents, on the grounds that LGBT people are unfit parents. This has no basis in fact. Since no credible science supports his claim, his belief must come from his own feeling of innate superiority. That's hetero-supremacy.

- The Chick-Fil-A COO's statement that we're arrogant to define marriage for ourselves was hetero-supremacist, since the heterosexual project of defining marriage for the last 5,000 years doesn't seem to have bothered him much. Only LGBT people are excluded from the marriage-defining party.

The Kingdom's Ball had been a smashing success so far.

The Peacock strutted about in his finery. The Moose let the Chimpanzees swing from his horns. The Elephant was just remarking that he would never forget the evening, when he suddenly leapt into the air, letting out a mighty trumpet, as a single tuxedoed Mouse strode confidently into the ballroom.

The party screeched to a halt. The Octopi stopped playing their instruments. The Bears stopped dancing. The Elephant hung quietly from the chandelier. Everyone watched silently as the Mouse walked up to the buffet table, crawled up the tablecloth, and plucked the choicest grape.

"I didn't ruin it! I just…showed up."

Enraged, the Lion leapt to confront the Mouse. "Why did you ruin my party?" he demanded.

"I didn't ruin it, I just…showed up." The Mouse looked around at the transfixed partygoers. "And it's a good thing, too! This place is dead!" The Mouse winked at the Lion, then popped the succulent grape into his mouth and let the juice run down his face.

"How could you do this to me?" roared the Lion, taking Mouse's familiarity for insubordination. "You've ruined my party!"

"I have as much right to be here as anyone else," replied the Mouse

"I have a right to decide who comes to my ball!"

"I thought it was the Kingdom's Ball."

"Yes, and I'm the King! The party's mine! The castle's mine! The kingdom is mine! Everything is mine!"

The Lion's statement statement stunned the room into gasping.

The Lion plucked his friend from the table by his tail and stood holding him in the air. Then, with a flick of his paw, the King hurled the mouse out the window into the jungle underbrush.

Sensing the party was over, the animals filed out awkwardly, leaving the Lion alone.

Sensing the party was over, the animals filed out awkwardly, leaving the Lion alone.

Supremacy turns to hate when the feeling of innate superiority is openly challenged.

That outraged feeling you have of being oppressed or silenced just because pop culture doesn't like you, and Rahm Emmanuel threatened to keep Chick-Fil-A out of Chicago? That's the feeling a supremacist gets when her cultural superiority is being eroded.

Supremacy is why you and Bristol Palin have more outrage at your own inconvenience than at the legitimate oppression of others.

Supremacy is what causes you to believe that whatever status or privilege you enjoy is the will of God, so that the very act of fighting you politically is an ungodly act.

Supremacy is what allows you to think it only natural that your mere belief should be favored over my clear argument, or that your firmly-held opinion should be favored over my impassioned plea.

Like many habits, supremacy can be unconscious. Sometimes you don't know you're doing it until someone points it out.

And, when someone finally does point it out, it can be very tempting to hurl them out a window.

But don't do that. You'd be hurling the wrong thing.

I'm 43 years old now, and I've had time to change my supremacist habits of mind. I did it by knowing more African-American people, by listening instead of talking, by humbling myself and not demanding that I must agree with everyone in order to support them, and, most importantly, by admitting that other people's real lives were more important than my mere beliefs.

It should go without saying, but never does, that this is the essence of Jesus's teaching. He taught that belief without compassion was corrupt, and that a teaching should be judged on the fruit that it bearsthe amount of love it brings into the world.

If I'd picked up some "fact" from someone in a position of authoritya teacher, a relative, a preacher, a bookthat promoted a supremacist habit of mind (and, believe me, there were plenty in both church and in school), I asked myself whether that bit of dogma increased or decreased the love in the world.

If it decreased the love in the world, that is what I picked up by the tail and threw out the window.

If there are things in your faith or philosophy that are holding together your supremacist stance on LGBT equality, it's time to recognize that they they bear poison fruit.

You can still be Christian and support equality. Many do!

"[Being a] real Christian is not about accepting or condemning a person's lifestyle, it's not our job. It is about loving and accepting that person. We are all made in the image of God; why hate anything made in His image. I am so glad I read your article, Wayne. I live in the South, and the majority of folks are very homophobic. I may not totally agree with your choices, BUT I am happy you have someone in your life that loves you, and I pray that God keep you both safe from people who would want to do you harm." – [Name Withheld]

Pick up that supremacist dogma and hurl it out the window. Let us stay at the party. Most of the other animals don't seem to mind.

If you can't, then maybe it's time you heard the moral of our little fable:

Indulge thinking you're better than someone and that habit will grow. Pretty soon, you'll think you're better than everyone, and people don't put up with that forever.

- Wayne Self
Twitter: @owldolatrous
Facebook: facebook.com/owldolatrous

NOTE: If you send me feedback, you are agreeing that anything you send via email or Facebook may be quoted by me in future blog posts! I will withhold your name unless you indicate that you don't mind it being used.

Illustrations by Joe Parrie.

Wayne Self is a playwright and composer whose current project is a musical tribute to the 32 LGBT and allied victims of the 1973 arson fire at the Upstairs Lounge in New Orleans, LA. Considered by many to be the largest hate crime against LGBT people in U.S. history, the fire is sometimes seen as a lesson in the perils of silence. "Upstairs" will give voice to the victims of the fire–many of whom self-identified as Christian–and is scheduled to premier next year, in time for the 40th anniversary of the tragedy. For more information about the Upstairs fire, please visit http://tinyurl.com/8g6lr8j. For booking or production information, contact ewayneself@owldolatrous.com.

47 responses so far

"The basis of that disagreement is her belief that her relationships are intrinsically better than ours." « Toward a Moral Life August 10, 2012 at 1:42 pm
[...] has written one of the finest pieces I've ever read on the web about supremacy and social attitude. And it's written in one [...] Reply
- Owldolatrous August 10, 2012 at 6:05 pm
  Thank you! Reply
- Cindie Beach August 14, 2012 at 5:57 am
  That was a wonderful article! Thank you for making it so easy to understand. Reply
Pam Sebastian August 11, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Thank you, Wayne, for your continued wisdom on this topic.
When those who were promoters of Prop. 8 didn't want their names or faces in the media during the trial, fearing unpleasant repercussions, I thought: "Now they know how gay people have felt in the past, fearing to be outed and/or ostracized or worse. What makes them think they deserve any more protection than those they oppose have had?" This is the way I feel about your writer's sense of being "BASHED." Does s/he not think that LGBT people have been "BASHED"–physically, as you so nicely point out?
As for "trying to understand what it is to see life from your perspective," the writer only needs to substitute "liberal" for "conservative" and "(Bible-believing) Christian" for "gay" and vice versa, and s/he might get some idea of "your perspective."
In addition to your link about Biblical marriage standards, I offer your writer this one, about rites for same-sex couples in the church hundreds of years ago: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2142905/Civil-partnership-medieval-style-In-days-sex-marriage-Christian-rite.html
Things have not always been as they are now.
I am a 68-year-old straight woman–wife, and mother of (straight) sons, lest your writer think I have an axe to grind.
Keep up the good work. Reply
Hal Bichel August 11, 2012 at 6:12 pm
Wow, this is a fabulous article. I love that you manage validate the feelings of your commenter AND to break down the underlying logic in a way that is easy to understand and that does not vilify him/her or Bristol. I wish more people thought about the processes behind their feelings and opinions in this way. I especially enjoyed your comments on supremacy. Reply
Michael Mock August 12, 2012 at 6:33 am
I love this!
I only take issue with the commenter who said "I may not totally agree with your choices…" – I'm straight, and I *DO* agree with the your choices, because they're YOUR CHOICES, not mine! And I've no doubt you agree with MY choices, too, because that's what acceptance and equality are about. You can choose things I might not, and vice versa. If we are at the same restaurant having dinner, and I order pizza, it doesn't make your steak inferior, or "wrong". It means we like different things, and we're both right to do so. Reply
paula August 12, 2012 at 7:34 am
Amen! I am a hetero sexual but I too believe in loving thy neighbor as myself. No but's or unlesses. I didn't a say I was perfect, but still trying! Reply
Kellie Ritchey August 12, 2012 at 9:39 am
Very insightful and such a big eye opener! I grew up Christian, riding the "church bus" and loved the feeling I used to get singing the old gospal songs and listening to the preacher. But as I got older I looked at how other "Christians" around me REALLY acted. It was, to me, disgusting that the people that were supposed to show the world a shining example of what a "Christian should be were lying, cheating on their wives/husbands, taking drugs, and stealing from the church. So how could these people tell me what God wants, or who God loves/hates? It seems to me that if God would "hate" anyone it would be the ones who say they are teaching his word and then acting like the laws of God and Man don't apply to them. I lost faith in church leaders, and I guess in God too. Every gay person I've ever met has been more of an example of Love and Light than any "Christian" I ever grew up with. And none of us "normals" have figured out how to make a marriage last. The divorce rate is HORRIBLE! So maybe gay people can show us how to make a relationship work? I'm not saying that the LBGT community has the answer for that, but "we" definately don't. So who are we to tell anyone what to do with their own relationship? Reply
Pam Grace August 12, 2012 at 9:55 am
I love this piece, and the Lion and Mouse analogy. One comment stands out,for,me, however…
"..I don't agree with your *choices*…." (Emphasis added)
For me, therein lies the crux. There is a deeply held belief among the intolerant that gay people *choose* to be gay, and expect the rest of the world to conform to their "chosen" lifestyle. An analogous population to this would be vegans. The thinking is "you chose this lifestyle, to make life difficult on yourself so why should the rest of us deal with your choice? Why should we bend over backward to see that your meal is vegan, when you *chose* to * be* vegan?"
Until they can understand and believe that homosexuality is NOT a choice, the Lion will continue to keep the Mouse out the party. Reply
- Jacob McDowell August 13, 2012 at 6:42 am
  Pam, I agree that it's not a choice and I'm not disagreeing with you, quite the contrary, but I'd like to add: So what if it is a choice? Adults should be able to choose how they want to live their lives. So many people rely on faith unless it's something that they don't agree with and then they want scientific data to back it up or it should be thrown out in court. I, on the other hand, think that whether it's a natural part of that person's life or whether they chose it, it's still their right to enjoy all the freedoms that heterosexual people do. Reply
- Melissa Martin August 13, 2012 at 2:06 pm
  "Until they can understand and believe that homosexuality is NOT a choice, the Lion will continue to keep the Mouse out the party."
  Not possible, really in their worldview, it always will be a choice. Remember, a significant number of religious anti-gay advocates have long since acknowledged that same-sex attraction may be innate; so when they talk about "choice," they're not talking about the choice to experience same-sex attraction at all. They're speaking about the choice to *act* on those attractions.
  Essentially, many anti-gay activists aren't averse to the idea that someone might be born with an attraction to the same sex. But they consider that similar to other "sinful" feelings that people experience and are called on to reject in order to live a Christian life though for sociocultural reasons and bunk theology, they hold a far more intense rejection of same-sex attraction than many of those other things.
  So how far do we go with trying to convince them it's "not a choice?" I don't think that's the right approach, anymore. For years, a lot was invested in exploring and explaining the fact that there's a biological component to sexual orientation. I totally get why that's been important, but at the point we're at now, I think it's the wrong question. When we try to convince "them" that sexual orientation "isn't a choice," we're allowing THEM to define the conversation, and then getting defensive about it.
  Like Jacob said above, the real question is: "And if it is a choice… SO WHAT?" If someone wakes up tomorrow and says "Hey, I think I might try being gay for awhile," does that fact in and of itself make hir partnerships, hir autonomy and hir right to equality and freedom from prejudice any less valid? Of course it doesn't. The core issue is still all about autonomy and freedom from prejudice.
  So instead of trying to push the "it's not a choice" issue which just goes to a push and pull let's instead reply with: "And if that is my choice for what to do with my life, and my body how does it affect you and yours?" The most important thing isn't that people all agree on Why People Are Gay it's that they come to understand that it's not a threat to them and their communities if people are gay or not. Reply
- Jerry August 13, 2012 at 2:47 pm
  I spend a lot of time talking to people about this issue, and what I've found is that when they refer to 'choice', they're not addressing orientation anymore, but instead the choice to act on it: 'hate the sin, not the sinner'. Getting them to look deeper into it, and helping them realize that acting on orientation is not evil, and indeed, asking someone to repress that side of themselves, even if they are openly gay but celibate, is not only unfair, but inhumane. It builds on the idea of supremacy, but telling someone that does little for the cause. Telling someone that they are wrong doesn't generally yield many results and neither does pointing out someone's discrimination; people don't generally cast themselves as the villain. Thus, in order to help someone evolve on this issue, we need to meet them where they are, wherever that may be, and understand their position, without judgment. Then, there is a chance for open and honest dialogue. The only way that someone is going to shift their opinion is if they want to, and the only way they will want to shift is if they see and recognize the hurt and pain that their position on the issue causes. Reply
Andrew Stibbs August 12, 2012 at 10:25 am
Dear Wayne,
Wow – what a thought provoking article. Your points about supremacy made me think about where I give voice to this in my own life. Often, being a liberal who was brought up on the thought that everyone is entitled to their own belief, one can feel a certain amount of superiority over those who seem to be so small minded and intolerant but that's not very useful and must be cast aside too! I loved your article and will pass it around. Reply
Maggie August 12, 2012 at 12:39 pm
Excellent. My soul is applauding. I will pass this on and hope I can help spread your message. THANK YOU! Reply
Maria August 12, 2012 at 12:44 pm
This is thoughtful, respectful, and superb writing. I applaud you for trying to make this disastrous ideological upheaval into a sound dialogue. While disgusted by hate shown from one side, I have also been troubled by hate shown from the side of those oppressed and in support of the oppressed. It is clearly not going to end in resolution if hate and anger are the tactics involved. A number of years ago, I was introduced to the uncomfortable idea of "white privilege" and though it made me uneasy and ashamed, the more I looked into this issue, the more I felt myself changing towards being a more humble individual – aware of the supremacy perpetuated by society and leas inclined to be in denial about it. Privilege is a difficult topic to conquer, because so many who are privileged are not aware of their seat. Thank you for being a part of the discourse that gives us a clearer view of what this truly means. Reply
Miss Katherine August 12, 2012 at 1:54 pm
This was the most beautifully written, heart-full, and intelligent essay I have read on this topic…and I've read a lot. Thank you so much for taking the time and for investing your own vulnerability into the piece. Reply
Laura August 12, 2012 at 2:00 pm
Thank you for this. It's lovely for once to read a calm, rational argument that doesn't paint all Christians with the same extreme right homophobic brush.
Personally, I'd love to see marriage defined as between any consenting adults. (And yes, that includes poly arrangements, I've known a couple of families that made it work, and who am I to say they can't love who they love???) It's never really made sense to me that marriage should only be between one man and one woman, when there are so many other possibilities, and as long as everyone involved is satisfied with the arrangement, what's the problem exactly? Hell, I'll be the first to admit that if I hadn't met my husband first, it's entirely possible I might have ended up with a woman. We're wondrous creatures, us girls!
I grew up in what looked from the outside like a very traditionally Christian home, but there was more than enough going on behind closed doors to put lie to a lot of the more egregious dogma. I still call myself a Christian, I still go to church on Sunday, read the Bible, and refer to God with masculine pronouns, but mostly because it's what I can get my head around, rather than from any deep seated conviction that a male triune Godhead is the be all and end all of the Deity. I'm still going to teach my kids about Jesus and to follow his teachings, but it will include original language & culture research so that the context is established. The attitude toward homosexuality is only one of so many things touted by the extreme right as "God's Plan" that simply fall apart when you dig into things like cultural context and the original language used.
But in the end, it comes down to one thing… the God I know, the God that has done so many things in my life, things that can't be denied or explained away, that God is Love. It makes no sense whatsoever for Love to create a person, design their form and mind and soul, and then decree that some fundamental aspect of that person is sinful and must be eliminated. It's just… incongruous with the love I have known all my life, and I'm far more comfortable with the idea that God is bigger than my notion of Him, than with any attempt by humans to define "God's Plan". You start putting words in God's mouth… things get dicey awfully fast.
Bristol's still only 21. At 21 I still had a few supremacist notions floating around in my head too. I've learned better since, and doubtless still have quite a ways to go. Cut the kid some slack, if she's got any kind of functional intelligence in there, she'll figure it out. Reply
Deborah Koslowsky August 12, 2012 at 2:03 pm
"Let us stay at the party. Most of the other animals don't seem to mind."

I'm going to edit this for you, because nobody holds the right to let or not let you enjoy the party:
"We're here at the party. Most of the other animals don't seem to mind." Reply
Glenna Jones-Kachtik August 12, 2012 at 4:45 pm
Thanks for this story… We need more stories today & we need to listen to each other's story…one of my favorites was about the 2 tribes who went to war & they fought until there was only 1 person on each side left. It got dark & they agreed to halt the combat until the sun rose. They cooked a meal. They lay down & they talked. They talked about their lives in their village. They talked about their families. They talked about their children, the crops they grew & the songs they sang…when the sun rose – they both picked up their arms & bowed to each other & then went home….after finding common ground & that their 'alikes' were greater than their differences – they could no longer battle…We need stories that teach.
I don't know if this updating of the Lion & the Mouse will make any headway against "man shall not lie with a man…." but let's hope that it can begin to foster a dialog with the other side about how people perceive themselves & others. I would really like in my lifetime (& I have been here 63 years) to see same sex marriage become a reality.
May you & yours know peace & thanks for the story – it was wonderful. Reply
Lori Kohler August 12, 2012 at 6:29 pm
Fantastic essay/explanation. Helps me tremendously. I've struggled for years trying to understand why my twin sister's religious beliefs and attitudes hurt me as they do. As a new Christian, she once told me how upset she was that I wouldn't be with her in Heaven…. and it has hurt me for years. As she has matured in her faith, she no longer says such horrible things – but that doesn't mean she does not believe them still.
Even though I don't believe in Hell or Heaven as actual places, this is still a hurtful thing, and every once in awhile I have to pick that sore, as it was… only to find that yes, she still believes that – which means she is still making judgments about me. She denies this vehemently, and says that it is God's judgment, not hers (?), and that there is only "one way up the mountain…."
What you said about people that love the person they are feeling superior to captures this perfectly, and I thank you. Supremacy is a good word for it…. the best I could come up with up to now is arrogance. I love and respect my sister very much, and disagree with her completely on almost everything spiritual and political… she gets highly offended if I criticize the Tea Party, because some of her friends are members… but cannot understand why I get offended and sad by some of the things that she says.
I could go on… and may later – but thanks again for helping me to better understand what has been hurting me for years… it helps a lot.

LK Reply
Kirsten Houseknecht August 12, 2012 at 7:20 pm
in general very well stated.
i think, mostly, that if many of the Xtian groups felt secure that their religion wouldn't have to include things they do not agree with they might calm down,
but every single incident where a church got sued for not allowing the gay couple to be married IN the church instead of on the public grounds… or the gay activists making a scene in the church… gets a LOT of airtime. i mean a LOT… as a Xtian you hear about this over and over, which gives the idea that it is VERY common…. and leads directly to the "will i have to compromise my religious beliefs if gay marriage is legal"
now i am of the opinion that the best solution all around is to have ALL marriages divided into "civil" (any citizen, of any gender, because that's civil law) or "domestic partnerships" (including my legal het marriage)
and "religious" which has NO bearing on anything in civil law (why should my religious marriage affect my taxes anyway)
with the firm understanding that NO church has to recognize any civil marriage. ever.
personally i think that may be the only way to really settle this fairly for everyone. it protects the religious beliefs of our citizens (including their right to be biased, or jerks, or whatever) while protecting our civil rights.
oh, and a small point… depending on your definition of "conservative Christian" you may be quite wrong about the history.. but as i said it depend on who you include in that group…. Catholics have faced serious legal persecution in the united states, for instance.. as have 7th day Adventists and many others. if you include those two alone you canot say that they have "never faced" legal discrimination or abuse.
if you ONLY include mainstream protestants, then you are correct but a minor point. Reply
- Tal August 14, 2012 at 9:57 am
  Actually, all legal marriages in the US are *already* civil marriages. That such unions are often also blessed by clergy doesn't change that fact.
  The religious rite of Holy Matrimony is and always has been something separate from the legal rights conferred by a signed marriage license. The government cannot tell the church who they can and cannot perform rites for. Therefore the church shouldn't be able to tell the government who they can and cannot allow to enter into legal contracts. Reply
  - Kimc Your comment is awaiting moderation. August 14, 2012 at 9:01 pm
    but it does. Right now, there are plenty of churches that perform gay marriages, but the "conservative Christians" who are anti-same-sex marriage are telling the government it has to adhere to their religion and ignore mine. That's unconstitutional. And if I had enough money, I'd try to get it up to the Supreme Court. It's backwards: the law is narrowly "Christian" and the churches vary all over the place my church performed its first same-sex marriage ceremony in 1956. Reply
J Poland August 12, 2012 at 7:53 pm
Both of your articles are incredibly well written. You are so articulate in what you have written. I envy your ability to write so beautifully. I feel sad, however, that most of the persons with the negative feelings toward the LGBT community are so locked into their beliefs that they won't get it. If you are able to reach a few though, that will be a plus. Reply
Laurel Fowlie August 13, 2012 at 6:12 am
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson, writer and philosopher (1803-1882)
Excellent article!! Reply
WFDT August 13, 2012 at 7:23 am

I'm still shaking my head at Bristol's assertion that she's for traditional marriage: You know, where a teenager has a child out of wedlock then proceeds to star in a series of "reality" TV shows. Reply
The Lion and the Mouse « A Few Horizons August 13, 2012 at 7:37 am
[...] Aesop to the Right: Why I Believe Bristol Palin Share this:TwitterFacebookRedditStumbleUponDiggTumblrPinterestLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. [...] Reply
R. W. August 13, 2012 at 9:35 am
I loved this piece! For two reasons: 1)it's a beautiful commentary 2)it's both exactly how I feel about the gay rights issue as well as how I feel about race issues. As an African American woman, I deal with people on a daily basis you believe that their perceived right to be prejudiced and/or get advantages that others don't have is being threatened and therefore it's "reverse racism" and they're allegedly oppressed. They did a survey on this and a substantial amount of people really think that their "white rights" are being violated. It sounds absolutely identical to the anti-gay rights people. They believe that they have the right to allowances that gays don't have and saying otherwise is oppressing them. It's really ridiculous. Reply
Gary Poland August 13, 2012 at 12:09 pm
As a life long Progressive this pc truly connected with me at a level I had never considered before. Thank you for your insights and thoughts. Reply
Matt Haley August 13, 2012 at 1:58 pm
Loved this article. Whenever I bring this up with my Southern Baptist family and friends, however, what I hear is, in essence, "Love the sinner, hate the sin". Which is sad, because it's almost as if they're able to hold two completely contradictory thoughts and believe in them both equally. Reply
Joe August 13, 2012 at 2:26 pm
Religion is such a personal thing. And different religions rarely agree on things. This is why we have freedom of religion here. And It's great to have differing opinions and even share those opinions openly. I mean discussing topics like this is how we grow, and that's the point of free speech.
What is wrong, is forcing those beliefs on someone else. This may be a bad example, because I'm really not trying to make a comparison between gay people and bacon. But the point is the same. If you're Jewish and you believe for religious reasons that you should not eat pork, that's great. You can even tell people that you believe that God does not want us to eat pork. But does that mean that you should try to make civil laws preventing the entire country from eating pork? I love my bacon, so please don't =)
So, if you think pork is a forbidden food, awesome, just don't eat it. But understand that not everyone feels that way, and you can't really force them to bend to your will. And them eating bacon doesn't affect your rights, you still have the right to believe it's wrong and refrain from pork yourself. Reply
- Neil August 13, 2012 at 10:35 pm
  Joe, to be talking about what brings the most love into being, though, we need a better standard than rights. The religious in the first century A.D. were having just the problem you discuss, for instance. Some Messianic Jews were eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols because it didn't matter, after all, while others equally devout were zealous about the holiness of the thing and they were aghast.
  Leaders had to step up to the issue and they said that as a matter of Jesus love, there was a right answer in the situation. Those who weren't scandalized about the meat were perfectly free to eat it as they did AND should not trip up those whose faith was less strong than theirs. They might believe that the beef was pointless and that they're acting in love toward their fellows to try to get them not-hung-up-on-it: but even so, the *most* loving thing was to defer, even bend over backward, if necessary, to the sensibilities of those who had less free lifestyles. Reply
Jessica August 13, 2012 at 7:42 pm
Homosexuality is a sin = sinners shouldn't be allowed to get married. That's just not God's design.
HOLD THE PRESSES, YOU GUYS, all us married folks just broke the Bible. I HATE IT when that happens. Reply
Joel Sutton August 13, 2012 at 7:52 pm
Brilliant!! Simply brilliant. Reply
Sam August 13, 2012 at 8:24 pm

You've laid this out all out so perfectly. Seriously one of the best things I have ever read. Reply
Karen August 13, 2012 at 8:47 pm
So….. was the mouse okay in the end?? Reply
- Owldolatrous August 14, 2012 at 8:38 am
  
  Eh. You know. Can't complain. Reply
Carol R. August 13, 2012 at 8:49 pm
In the earliest days of Christianity, all marriages were civil contracts and the best the Church could do was to bless a particular union. The separation of church and state decreed by our founding fathers makes this a reasonable position under the Constitution.
I suspect the founding fathers would find civil unions easier to understand than the voter apathy with which we have been confronted in recent elections- democracy was not designed to be a spectator sport! Reply
Vicki K August 13, 2012 at 10:51 pm
This whole piece is eloquently and beautifully expressed. Thank you.
What particularly stood out for me was this:
"If I'd picked up some "fact" from someone in a position of authoritya teacher, a relative, a preacher, a bookthat promoted a supremacist habit of mind… I asked myself whether that bit of dogma increased or decreased the love in the world. If it decreased the love in the world, that is what I picked up by the tail and threw out the window."
That is the perfect question to ask. It really speaks to me today, so thanks for being the messenger that it came through. Reply
Glauke August 14, 2012 at 12:19 am
Paul the Spud linked your piece over at Shakesville.
Wanted to drop a line, saying how effing brilliant this piece is. Thank you for putting it so clearly. Reply
Isa Kocher August 14, 2012 at 4:26 am
They say they don't mean it personally. We don't "hate" you.
it is very simple. the "christian" belief that i am less than human [or for that any dogma muslim buddhist or whatever] is nothing but a form of hate. if you choose to believe that gay people are inferior to you, that belief is your choice so take responsible for your choices. don't blame god or the pope. if you "believe" than don't give me the "don't take it pertsonal" or the "just saying" crap. when you choose to hurt the people i love, damn it, you are hurting humans.
It is your choice so it does not matter whether you call it love hate or a kangaroo. Reply
Isa Kocher August 14, 2012 at 4:42 am
it is part and parcel of the 30 some odd years tradition of explaining away and justifying self centered selfishness and denial of responsibility. How dare they say they have to believe this or that about me because the pope or whatever tells the to. No difference whatsoever than choosing to be a Nazi or choosing to follow Tojo's orders and kill babies. There were a lot of very nice Nazis. Bristol may or may not be nice but she is lying. And just as guilty of atrocity as any Inquisition but without the courage to be honest about it.
They consciously choose to believe truly horrible things with truly horrible consequences in the lives of real people, so saying they don't hate us is even worse: they don't care.
There is no one with a gun against their heads making them "believe." It is disgusting. Makes me puke. Reply
Amy August 14, 2012 at 4:45 am
There is one main problem with your article, which I feel (unfortunately) invalidates large parts of it. You are ignoring the Belief of many Christians that God is real, and all powerful, and laid out his message to us in the Bible.
You say that the Lion doesn't let the mouse in to the party because it is 'his' party, and it is just an old rule. That's not the whole story. The Lion believes that the 'Spirit of the Mountain' (or whatever else you would like to use for this story) will come down, and squash both the lion, and the mouse, if the mouse is let into the party. The mouse of course thinks this is stupid, and that the lion is just using the story of the Spirit of the Mountain to get his own way. How can the Lion explain he is doing this to the mouse, for both of their own good? Reply
- Owldolatrous August 14, 2012 at 8:41 am
  The allegory attempts to show the relative relationships of the Lion and the Mouse to CIVIL law, as we are discussing the CIVIL institute of marriage.
  All allegories fall apart at some point, and this allegory wasn't written to discuss the relative relationships of the Lion and the Mouse to GODS law. If it were, they would not, I assure you, be Lion and Mouse. They'd be equal. Reply
Maria W August 14, 2012 at 7:40 am
I wise theologian once told me, "If you are going to preach, only preach the Gospel". All I have to say to this blog is "Amen!". Preach it, brother! Reply
nope August 14, 2012 at 8:06 am
You have been neither gay nor Christian your entire life. At some point in your life, you made a decision to turn from your life of sin and ask Jesus Christ to be your Lord and personal Savior. At some point in your life, you made a decision to have sex with a man. Reply
- Kimc Your comment is awaiting moderation. August 14, 2012 at 9:10 pm
  You seem to be unclear on the concept of "decision". Reply
Kirstin August 14, 2012 at 8:20 am
Jealous of how well well-written and how well argued this piece is. : ) I hope it's distributed far and wide, and as another commenter said, even if one person understands the supremacist discrimination you're articulating and stops their own supremacy, it will be worth it. Will be using it in my critical thinking class this fall. Thank you so much! Reply
Kim Davison August 14, 2012 at 9:03 am
I would like to thank you for such a clear explanation of why so much is miscommunicated and misunderstood between groups and people. Wonderful job! Reply