In the Navy:Official Disapproval,Sensitivity in Bereavement.

In the Catholic Church, many people will know that in spite of official disapproval from on high, and outright hostility by some individuals in the church, very often parishes on the ground can be truly welcoming and accepting, with acceptance and full inclusion from both parishioners and parish priests. That was certainly my experience at Holy Trinity Parish, Braamfontein, Johannesburg -and is the experience of many others at countless parishes around the world.

A story from Chicago Sun Times demonstrates that this disconnect between official disapproval and practical warmth on the ground also applies in other formally homophobic institutions, in this instance the US marines. In spite of the policy of DADT which was still in force last June, and notwithstanding the vicious persecution that some gay servicemen experienced under that policy, the widowed husband of one Marine, John Fliszar,  found exceptional co-operation from the Naval Academy officials when he approached them for help in executing the dead man's wish to have his ashes  interred in the Naval Academy.

I enjoyed imagining the confused expressions of these officials when they were first approached by the widowed husband, Mark Ketterson:

The memorial coordinator asked about his relationship to the deceased. Ketterson said that John Fliszar was his husband.

“They were always polite, but there was this moment of hesitation,” Ketterson recalled. “They said they’re going to need something in writing from a blood relative. They asked, ‘Are you listed on the death certificate?’ ‘Do you have a marriage license?’ ”

Hawaii House Approves Civil Unions, & Other Marriage Equality Updates.

The Hawaii State House yesterday approved a civil unions bill by a comfortable margin. As the Senate has previously passed the measure, all that is now requited is some tinkering to reconcile the minor differences in the two versions, before it is presented to Governor Abercrombie, who has promised that he will sign it.  Hawaii will then join Illinois as the second US state to approve civil unions this year.

Meanwhile both Maryland and Rhode Island have been holding hearings on bills to provide state recognition for full marriage equality. With powerful voices against, including that of the institutional Catholic Church, it is too early to predict the final outcome. I am encouraged, however, by a few straws in the wind.

New York Catholics Support Gay Marriage

Barbara Bush's public support for gay marriage has garnered a lot of press attention over the past week. Reporting on this the Washington Post has drawn my attention to another finding that should have drawn more attention. Alongside the number of Republican politicians and Evangelical Christians who are breaking ranks with their traditional opposition and starting to support equality, the majority of US (and European) Catholics have already parted company with their bishops on the matter. This has been demonstrated in several polls in recent years, at national level, and in state level polls, as in Rhode Island.

When I read and reported on the recent finding of the Quinnipiac poll that a majority of New Yorkers now support full legal recognition of same sex marriages, I neglected to follow through on my usual practice of checking the cross-tabs for a breakdown by religion. This was a mistake. (In mitigation, I plead that I was under intense pressure  for time last week). As the Washington Post has now observed, the national pattern is found in New York, too.  An absolute majority of New York Catholics support full marriage (not simply civil unions). As the paper's report notes in its concluding remark, "Republican and Catholic leaders may find themselves increasingly out of touch with the rhythm and blues that are moving their constituents and congregants on these issues".

For how much longer can bishops, in the US or elsewhere, get away with claiming to speak for "Catholics" on such matters (or, in the Philippines), it is patently obvious that they are not speaking of the real beliefs or real Catholics, but only for Vatican doctrine and the rule book Catholics who would prefer to get their ideas from a moral manual, without personal thought or reflection?

Seeking Gay Parents, Dispels Myths

A Welsh children's charity, Barnardo's,  is actively seeking gay and lesbian prospective parents, in yet another demonstration that those in the know, the professional experts working in the field, recognize that parenting ability has nothing at all to do with gender or sexual orientation.   What matters far more, is the quality of love and the emotional stability of the home. Abundant scientific research has amassed reams of evidence, frequently disseminated by the professionals, and other agencies before this one have likewise made the same plea for more queer applicants - but the myths, freely promoted by ignorant Catholic spokesmen, still survive.

The resulting prejudice is one of the factors that discourages some potential prospective parents from applying. This is in direct conflict with the interests of the children, which the Church falsely claims to be promoting. The best interests of the children, the professionals know, lies in admitting the largest possible pool of applicants, irrespective of orientation, so that each child may be matched with the best possible parents. At present, there are an estimated 64,000 children in the care system in England: one quarter of whom will never find a family.  Excluding same-sex couples even from consideration as adoptive parents, as the Catholic bishops would like to do, cannot possibly improve the chances of that 25%, and could lead to some of the others being placed with parents who are possibly not necessarily the most suitable just the best suited heterosexuals.

Queer Families at Gay Pride, Rome

Fortunately, British law recognizes the facts, and does not allow agencies to practice discrimination. Now, we need to ensure that public opinion catches up with the facts, to eliminate the continued self-exclusion by some gay couples, who might otherwise to offer their help to children in real need. The tragedy here is that some Catholic agencies, rather than filling their obligation to do the best for the children, have simply stopped finding homes for children at all.

Expert View on Gay Adoption: Beneficiaries are the Children.

Opponents of LGBT adoption regularly argue (correctly) that this is not a matter of gay/lesbian rights, but of the best interests of the children. Where they go wrong, is in making the false assumption that the best interests of the children involve excluding from consideration otherwise excellent potential parents who happen to have a homosexual orientation. At San Diego Gay and Lesbian News, Bryan Moore has a great interview with the adoption professional Adam Pertman, who sets corrects some common misrepresentations.

My favourite statement is his simple and direct response to the claims that LGBT people are somehow unfit for parenthood:

Those claims are made by people who are either uninformed or homophobic.

The important stuff though is not the one-line dismissal, but the substantive argument. Gay adoption is important, because it is in the best interests of the children.

The principle benefits are for children.

The fact is, there are lots of lesbian and gay people who want to give homes to children, so the real victims when that isn’t allowed to happen are the kids who wind up in temporary or group care or some other less advantageous situation. Yes, we should be working for equal rights for all, but the bottom line is, we’re here for the kids.

He takes care to note that "of course" LGBT equality is important, but later throws in important consideration, referring in passing to "qualified" potential parents. We as LGBT activists must always remember that no adult, gay, straight or trans, has any "right" to adopt, but only a right to be considered. All prospective parents are screened for a range of important considerations, and only those that meet the requirements may be approved. LGBT equality does not require an automatic right to adopt - simply that sexual orientation should not be seen as a reason to exclude candidate parents from further consideration.

Perhaps the most encouraging feature of his remarks is the observation that the numbers of openly gay or lesbian parents who are adopting is increasing steadily and rapidly. As the numbers increase, so the rest of the population becomes more familiar with family diversity - and in this case, familiarity breeds not contempt, but acceptance. Children are growing up with friends who have two moms or two dads. Parents from more traditional families are adapting to families of their offspring's playmates,  just as earlier generations of parents adapted to friends with single parents - or to friends of different ethnic backgrounds.

Gay adoption is here to stay - and will contribute to increasing public acceptance of LGBT equality more generally - as well as improving the chances that children will be placed with the best possible among all qualified potential parents.

(Adam Pertman is executive director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, a national nonprofit that is the pre-eminent research, policy and education organization in its field. He is also the author of Adoption Nation: How the Adoption Revolution Is Transforming America.. Pertman sat down with dot429 to discuss LGBT adoption, explaining the progress and the trials and tribulations. Read the full interview at SDGLN)

Related articles

• A Conservative, Christian Case for Gay Adoption. (queering-the-church.com)
• Gay Adoption, Gay Marriage as Moral Obligations: Two Jewish Views (queering-the-church.com)
• Equality and inclusion advancing, worldwide. (queering-the-church.com)

A Conservative, Christian Case for Gay Adoption.

The core element in this argument is familiar: adoption by same sex couples should be permitted, "because the best interests of the child" means the best parents available - not some theoretical, ideal myth. Sometimes the best available just happen to be gay or lesbian. What is different about this is that the argument comes from a declared conservative Christian, who makes no secret of her belief that homosexuality is a sin. But, she makes clear, as we are all sinners, her personal belief about the parents is no reason to act against the welfare of their children, to withhold standard courtesies and neighbourliness from the parents.

This argument needs to get through to all those (including too many Catholic bishops) who can see the issue of gay adoption only as a set of rules, and not as specific situations with real people. Fortunately though, this is happening. In the near future, I suspect, this response will be so mainstream as to be unremarkable.

From Blogher :

As a conservative Christian mom, I get looks whenever presumed "offensive" topics come into play. For instance, the "2 Gay Dad" issue. I like two shows with two gay dads and I also have a few gay friends who eventually will want to adopt. There's this assumption I will be outraged and come flying out with my Bible to protest. I assure you, I am not waiting in the shadows ready to pop out with my judgments. Quite the contrary.

The Fall of Rome, Reality Based History – and Gay Adoption

The vocal opponents of family equality are fond of making sweeping statements (in flagrant disregard of the evidence) about how marriage has "always" been between one man and on woman, how the proponents of equality are "redefining" evidence, quite ignoring the ways in marriage has been constantly redefined in the past - not least by the Christian churches. A variation on the theme has been that homosexuality has destroyed great civilizations, such as that of Rome. Illinois state Rep. Ronald Stephens has repeated this claim, blaming "open homosexuality" for the fall of Rome.

In a fun, sane response in the Chicago Sun-Times, Neill Steinberg dismisses the claim, basing his response on, well, historical fact, not what he calls Stephens' talking points. His most important observation is that the best known extensive study of the fall of Rome, Edward Gibbons "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", concluded that Roman civilization collapsed not because of homosexuality, but because of - guess what? Christianity.

Would that be a argument to ban Christianity today, for fear that it could cause the collapse of modern Western civilization?

The point I want to make is not that Gibbons was either right or wrong, but to heartily endorse Steinberg's larger point, that grand claims about the lessons of history really ought to be checked against the facts. This is certainly true in the secular sphere, but also in religious discourse. The often -repeated Vatican claims of Catholic "constant and unchanging tradition" are a smokescreen, often used to used to hide the importance of recently introduced changes, as Martin Pendergast noted recently, writing about gradualism in Benedict's theology.

But today, I do not want to explore this theme of the Church's constantly changing tradition. Let's just enjoy, instead, Steinberg's thoroughly delightful response to rep Stephens' ignorance. Here are some extracts:

Gay Adoption, Gay Marriage as Moral Obligations: Two Jewish Views (and one Christian)

Here's a refreshing change: instead of the spurious, religious arguments against gay adoption and gay marriage, two more voices (this time, from Jewish perspectives)  speaking out on the positive faith-based reasons in favour of each.

In the first of these, at the Jerusalem Post, the orthodox Rabbi, television host and author of religious books on relationships Shmuley Boteach argues strongly in favour of gay adoption. Last month, he participated with Rosie O'Donnell in a New Jersey public discussion on the subject. In an article published before this event, he reflected on these issues, and especially on an aspect that I see as the most important of all. When a friend he spoke to expressed regret that Rosie's four adopted children would never have a father (the standard, theoretical argument against gay adoption), Rabbi Shmuley replied with the obvious and important, reality-based response:

that without Rosie they wouldn’t have a mother either.

Blessing Same Sex Unions in Toronto

There is no longer any doubt in my mind that widepread, formal recognition by Christian churches of same-sex unions, by liturgical rites in church, is on the way - one small step at a time.

One of these small steps is in the diocese of Toronto, where the local archbishop has given pastoral guidelines for blessing same sex unions. Technically, the impact will be only local, in his own archdiocese, and limited to a simple blessing, not full marriage. Effectively, though, this one of those small steps that makes subsequent strides that much easier. Civil marriage for same sex couples is already a well-established fact of life in Canada. Church blessings in Toronto will soon spread across the nation, just as civil marriage did after a purely local introduction. From country-wide blessing of civil unions, to blessing civil marriages, to full church weddings, will be easy steps. Sweden already has gay and lesbian church weddings in the Lutheran church, with which Anglicans and Episcopalians are in communion. Other Scandinavian churches will soon follow suit - as will Canadian Anglicans, just a little later.

Archbishop Johnson with Queen Elizabeth, 2010

Gay Marriage, UK: The Legal Challenge Begins

Rev Sharon Ferguson is a pastor with the Metropolitan Community Church in Camden, North London, a parish, she notes, is "noted for its peace and justice work".  It is part of the Gospel requirement that as Christians we should be combating injustice, and standing up for the oppressed. Rev Ferguson and her partner, Franka Strietzel, have now taken the first steps in a campaign on her own behalf, and that of others in lesbian or gay committed relationships - the campaign for full marriage equality;

"My whole life is about campaigning for equality and justice as a pastor in a parish that is known for its social justice work," she added.

"It's part of my daily life to challenge discrimination, but with this campaign what is really nice is that it's about love."

Gay Catholics protest communion refusal

A news snippet from the Netherlands.

I'm trying to find out more.  The bit that intrigues me, is that "minister" Luc Buyens decided, after talking to the bishop, "not to give anyone at the service communion", so as "not to discriminate"

From DutchNews

Monday 22 February 2010

A number of openly homosexual practising Catholics will attend a service at the St Jan basilica in Den Bosch next Sunday to directly challenge a bishop on giving communion to gay men and women.

The protest follows the refusal of minister Luc Buyens to give communion to an openly gay man who had been elected carnival prince in his home town of Reusel.

The carnival blessing is a traditional part of the festivities.

After talks with the bishop, Buyens decided not to give anyone at the service communion. 'I do not want to discriminate,' he was reported as saying.

UPDATE: Here is a fuller report, from Radio Netherlands Worldwide - but this has no reference to the non-discrimination.