I have noticed that much of the anti-marriage equality talking points focus on the question of who gets to create rights, objection to creating new "special rights" for people, and the argument that no "right to marriage" exists.

But the question of rights -- what they are, who has them, how they are established and protected -- is not complicated.  A basic review of high school Civics Class will suffice... or at least a quick review of an Intro to Political Philosophy.

Generally, there are two kinds of rights (or liberties), broadly understood as "negative rights" (or liberties) and "positive rights" (or liberties).  That is, we both have the right from certain things (negative rights) as well as the right to certain things (positive rights).

In the United States, are rights are detailed in our foundational documents (Declaration of Independence), the Constiution and in our laws and jurisprudence system.

At its simplest, the Declaration of Independence expresses are rights this way:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...

In other words, we have the right to pursue and protect our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. While those are very general, both in the Constiution and jurisprudence, more specific rights get spelled out: free speech, free press, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, right to due process, right to privacy, right to bear arms, etc, etc.

The general principle is this: presumptions favors freedoms, liberties and rights.  We do not need to grant rights (they already exist... life, liberty and pursuit of happiness!) but at times, may need to limit rights for a compelling state interest. (As part of the "social contract", we all agree that a compelling state interest may be grounds to limit individual rights; the courts exist, in part, to adjudicate this very issue... does the state have a compelling interest in limiting rights).  

So while we don't vote to create rights, sometimes we vote (by representative in the case of legislation or directly in the case of a referendum) to limit rights based on a compelling state interest (burden of proof, being on the state or on those trying to limit rights.)

The legal procedings around the appeal of California's Proposition 8 is an example of this process. Those opposing marriage equality tried to make a case to the courts that there is a compelling state interest against marriage equality.  The courts, so far, have roundly rejected these arguments and found that there is no compelling state interest in limiting marriage rights to only heterosexuals.

There may be good and valid religious reasons to oppose marriage equality.  But that is a far cry from a compelling state interest in limiting the rights of a minority population in our society.  

We are not a theocracy nor do we force our religious convictions or morality onto others.  The religious objections to marriage equality are legally irrelevant.  The only way to oppose marriage equality is to actually believe there is a compelling state interest against gay couples getting married.

There are those who do believe that there is a compelling state interest.  They site bogus science about the harm of gay relationships, gay parents, etc.  They make hyperbolic claims that gay marriage will undermine a foundational instiution and undermine our very society.  Of course, there is no evidence for this claim -- empirical or otherwise.  For example, no one can point to any societal damage that has been done with marriage equality in Connecticut.

The right to marry is different than the rite of marriage.  The government should be silent when it comes to the marriage rite; and religious conviction is no reason to limit marriage rights.

Frankly, it is really that simple.

And while there is no argument for a compelling state interest in limiting marriage rights from gay and lesbian people, we know that the harm to our citizens is real and tangible... just watch this video:

And while there is no sound scientific argument against gay marriage, gay parents or gay families, there is a compelling state interest in supporting gay families... and respecting them... again, just watch this video:

We live in a country based on rights and liberties and the protection of both.  We rightfully reject any law that overly limits our rights and freedoms that are not justified by a compelling state interest.  There is no compelling state interest against gay marriage; and therefore, there is no legal argument against it either.

For we hold these truths to be self-evident...

THOUGHTS?

One of the tough things about being a professional chef, is that you miss almost all the really big and important celebrations in life.  We work holidays and weekends... just how it is.  When others are off from work, celebrating, going out... we work.  Just part of the deal.

A few weeks ago, I missed a wonderful wedding celebration for a good friend from my college days at Clark University.  My friend was celebrating here numptials with her beautiful wife-to-be.  Two families were coming together, two lives uniting as one.  And for my friend, I could hope for nothing more for her.  Her journey has been long and hard... and now she has found her soul mate... and I wish I had been there to celebrate with her and witness their vows and covenant before God.  

And this Saturday, I will be missing one of the most wonderful celebrations I can imagine.  An adoption celebration (complete with mobile pizza truck!)!!  A wonderful young couple from my church just got word this week that their long awaited adoption of their two sons was finally legal and complete.  

These women are inspiring to me in their devotion to each other, their sons, and as disciples of Jesus.  as far as I can tell, adoption is the greatest of all Christian sacraments. (I know it is not technically a sacrament... but it should be!)  Adopting -- especially adopting those who are troubled and coming from a tough siuation, through DCF, for example -- may be the greatest self-sacrificing Christ-like act I know of.  And these women have taken it on -- because they are called by God as a couple -- wife and wiife -- to enter this ministry of love.  And to see this family together, to get to know the boys... it is such a beautiful thing.  It is a privilege just to be their friends, to watch from the side, to see Jesus at work in their family.  I am sad to miss this celebration!

This week in the news, marriage equality has again become a hot issue -- for positive reasons and negative reasons.  North Carolina voted to ban marriage equality while the President of the United States came out in favor of it.  And even as President Obama spoke out in favor of it, Mitt Romney doubled down on the social conservative front to oppose it.  So, in other words, this issue is not going away and will be a huge issue in the upcoming election.

I don't know what the answer is... but I think part of it is helping people share and hear each other's stories.  It is tempting to say that all those who oppose marriage equality are just closed-minded bigots.  But it is not helpful.  Somehow, we need to create spaces where people can talk, listen, share, laugh, cry and learn to understand each other.

Frankly, I don't know how that will happen... but I believe it is the responsibility of the church to be a catalyst for this kind of healthy relationship building.

While nothing beats being at a celebration... and nothing beats just sitting down and talking over great food and drink... videos can tell some great stories. Regardless of which side of the equation you are on -- whether you support marriage equality or not -- you will watch both these videos... if nothing else, to better understand...

And then I would love to hear your thoughts...

This video is one of the most powerful video stories I have ever seen... made me cry:

And this is about as articulate an explanation as I have heard:

THOUGHTS?

A good friend asked me the other day why my harshest critiques -- at least on my blog, Facebook and Twitter -- are reserved for evangelicals?  And why I rarely if ever critique liberal churches, mainline churches, etc?

Why do I critique evangelicalism?

Because I am an evangelical.

I critique from within the community of faith -- not attacking it from outside.

I challenge my brothers and sisters to embrace grace and gospel; to model the radical inclusivity of Christ; to live out their faith with Kingdom values as followers of our King.

I also critique evangelicals because the stakes are higher.

To be honest, I do not care if elements of the LGBT community or liberal press are hostile towards Christians.  It matters not to me at all.  Welcome to the diaspora... where we are foreigners and aliens on mission together.

But when evangelicals attack, exclude, condemn, bully and brutalize... I believe there are eternal consequences.  And this matters a great deal to me.  So I challenge it.

Maybe if I was a mainline liberal (in terms of theology), I would reserve my critiques to mainline liberalism.  But I am not -- so I will leave that to someone else.

I am an evangelical. So I will call evangelicals to be the church God intends us to be.  And I will criticize, challenge and chastise accordingly... because Jesus desires His Bride to be pure and righteous and full of justice and compassion and mercy and grace...

Part of the problem for me, is that I went along with the "party line" against LGBT folks for so long... and many people got hurt.  I know LGBT folks who today are not following Jesus because of the damage done by well-meaning but terribly-wrong evangelicals.  My critic voice is part of my penance.

And so I will continue to call out in us (as evangelicals) those areas that need to be called out... praying that we (as evangelicals) would heed the call and seek increasing justice, compassion, mercy and grace in the name of Jesus Christ.

Amen. 

Traditional marriage is between one man and one woman.

It is also "till death do us part."

A literal reading of the Bible teaches that divorce is evil and that remarriage is adultery.

A literal reading of the Bible also prohibits marrying someone who is not of your faith (in the OT, this means Israelites can only marry Israelites; in the NT, this means, of course, that only Christians can marry Christians).

According to the Bible, the only true marriage is one in which one man and one woman, who are part of a faith community, make a life-long covenant to each other and God, to be married for life.

Therefore, being a supporter of traditional marriage, I am compelled to support legislation that bans:

- All divorce, except in the case of physical abuse or neglect.

- All remarriage.

- The marriage of atheists, agnostics, or anyone of any religion other than Christianity or Judaism. (To count as a "Christian", you must be baptized, be a professed believer in the Lordship of Christ, believe in the physical resurrection, and have a born-again experience.  Generally, Catholics are in, mainline liberals are out; Mormons are definitely out.  To be "Jewish", your mother must be Jewish and you must be able to trace your lineage to prove that you are in fact of Jewish blood).

- Any intermarriage.

- Any same-sex marriage.

We must ban all of these because we support traditional marriage. Those who are divorced and remarried shall not be recognized as married for tax purposes, insurance, etc.  Same with all the other categories listed above.  

WHO IS WITH ME?

Pretty much the entire "Biblical" case against homosexuality can be found in 7 verses.  The traditionalists build their case based on these verses and a worldview based on Creationism and Adam & Eve.

I have written extensively about each of the seven passages before (here) and about the importance of good Biblial hermeneutics (here), so I will not delve into those details again here.

Suffice it to say, based on good hermeneutics (that is, the proper interpretation and application of scripture), I think the best (that is, most faithful) reading of the text is that God does not condemn anywhere loving, committed, monogamous, life-long, Christ-centered gay relationships.

Most certainly, there are certain same-sex relationships and practices that are condemned in the scriptures.  For instance, homosexual rape is condemned.  As is the inherently abusive relationship between adult men and young boys.  Scripture is clear in condemning these and I think, for the most part, even today, we all agree in those condemnations.

But in order for the traditionalists to build a case against all homosexual relationships and against all homosexuals, they rely on a logical jump going from the specific example to the universal principal.

This is a dangerous, and I think logically flawed, jump that is designed to simply be self-affirming of the position the traditionalists are trying to argue for -- that is, this is classic eisegesis, not good exegesis.

Here is how the argument goes:

Scripture condemns X-specific behavior.

Therefore, scripture condemns all X-general behavior. 

That is:

Scripture condemns homosexual relations between free men and slave boys (X-specific).

Therefore, by implication, scripture condemns all homosexual relations (X-general).

Of course, the logic is self-evidently flawed:

Scripture condemns heterosexual adultery (Y-specific).

Therefore, by implication, scripture condemns all heterosexual relations (Y-general).

In the New Testament, all we have are specific examples of things that the writer (usually Paul) condemns.  In the Old Testament, we have narratives that generally condemn specific behavior.

We also have the Levitical Holiness Code that condemns all homosexuality, but it comes in a a section that (a) Christians universally agree is not binding under the New Covenant (except for gays, apparently) and (b) includes other prohibitions that we totally ignore (wearing clothes made of mixed fibers, dietary laws, laws about menstruation and the stoning of disobedient children, etc).

Much is also made of Romans 1 in regard to the more universal argument.  But in Romans 1, Paul is using homosexuality as a rhetorical example to essentially lure his listeners (traditionalist Jews) into his argument about universal grace; he is not, in and of itself, making a theological argument or claim about homosexuality.

Paul simply picks an example for his audience that he knows will resonate culturally. Homosexuality was considered evil and disgusting by religious Jews of the day.  Today, if speaking to a Muslim population and trying to make the same argument, Paul might well choose an example of a Muslim teen, who listens to Western music, dresses in western clothing and drinks and chews and runs with women who do too.  To this hypothetical modern audience, this teen man would clearly have brought condemnation upon himself!  (Ahhh yes... Paul's point precisely... that we all have!!!!!).  But none of this would speak to Paul's feelings about -- let alone God's feelings about -- this young Muslim teen who listens to American music.  All we learn is what his audience thinks about such things... not what God thinks.

Suffice it to say, Romans 1 says nothing about what God thinks about homosexuality.

The final place where traditionalists make their biggest logical error is again with the specific-to-general logical jump.

Much is made of Adam and Eve as being the model married couple.  And of course, God created them and brought them together in sexual union that the two will become one.  

I affirm that this is, in fact, a beautiful picture of marriage and that God created marriage and intends us to live in this kind of "one flesh" relationship.  It reveals something about the creativity and beauty of God... that we are most human when we are in intimate community together with another.

And, the traditionalist will often remind us that God created "Adam & Eve" not "Adam & Steve", as if this makes clear that the relationship/marriage we are talking about must be heterosexual.

This is the specific example to universal principle logical jump:

Adam was male and Eve was female (X-specific).

Therefore all unified (married) couples for all time must be male and female (X-general).

The problem with this logic, of course, is that we being very selective about WHICH X-specific factors matter and which ones don't.  In fact, we choose based entirely on the conclusion we are trying to create -- the essence of bad exegesis.

For example:

The male was named Adam and female named Eve (X-specific).

Therefore all unified (married) couples for all time must be named Adam and Eve (X-general).

We rightfully reject this argument, reasoning that the names of the two people involved are not the relevant factor.

We could make the same argument based on a number of factors and variables: race (both Adam and Eve were semitic people, presumably), height, age, hair color, relationship to each other, etc etc.  But we tend to dismiss all of those issues and then make gender the key "big idea" of this passage.

But why?  It is certainly not emphasized in the text.  There is little discussion of gender.  The emphasis is on community and unity, on intimacy and family unit.  Things that are reflected in the Holy Trinity.

The text emphasizes relationship, compliment, partnership.  Not gender.  But we conclude, based on our own pre-supposition about what marriage must mean, that the key component of this model that is universal is gender.

But there is neither a logical nor textual reason to conclude this.

Now some will argue that this is a slippery slope to, for example, polygamy.  They argue, that if the model isn't one man and one woman, why can't it be one man and two women?

Well, one answer is that this particular text makes it dificult to make the argument because the author actually makes the specific-to-general argument explicit (as opposed to, the claim that it is implicit, which we have now debunked).

"This is why the two shall become one."

We get specific example (two become one) and then it is repeated as a general universal principle.  It is not a logical jump, but an explicit teaching of the scripture.

Okay, the naysayer will grant.  No polygamy.  But what about marrying animals or adults marrying children or such...

(The argument goes that if we take the position that the Genesis narrative is not primarily about gender, it opens the doors to lots of other "bad" behaviors we want to ban).

Well... there are certainly other Biblical (and even non-Biblical) principles at play, such as the Great Commandment to love one another and to love God.  So we have grounds for rejecting relationships that are not based on mutual love (a child in an abusive relationship cannot reciprocate freely that love... same with an animal.) Of course, Biblical-folk must be a bit careful here because, by our modern standards, the relationship between Joseph (probably at least 20 years old and perhaps several years older) to Mary (at most 13 or 14, possibly younger) would be scandalous and illegal.

But we recognize that societal standards have changed we understand the narrative in its historical context.

So, in conclusion:

First, before we can use the Adam-Eve model as a hammer to beat gay people with, we must first make the case that the universal teaching of that narrative is about gender.  I don't think anyone can realistically make that argument.

Second, when we look at the other passages, all we see is very specific condemnation of very specific types of relationships and behavior.  There is not warranted grounds to universalize that teaching/ethical claim -- or at least, the burden of proof is on those who want to make these universal. 

Finally, some will ask, can I find any positive examples of gay marriage or relationships in the Bible?  The answer is possibly (or maybe here), but not definitely.  But that is not the point.  We don't need to find examples of marriage in the Bible with two working parents, with three kids, who drive mini vans.  Those aren't the key factors... work, children, jobs or transportation.  The key factors are love, partnership, unity in the flesh, etc.  So I have models to follow in the scripture... the same ones you do.

As someone who loves the Bible, believes it to be the inspired word of God, believes it to be authoritative and instructive, and believe that it testifies to and reveals the Living Word of God (Jesus), I believe that we must respect the scriptures.  When we make them say more than they do -- or manipulate them to coincide with our own pre-conceived conclusions -- we do as muc damage to them as when we take things out and ignore its basic teaching.  The logical flaw of specific-to-general reasoning runs the danger of adding into the text that which is not there. (Rev 22:18-19)

Conservative, evangelical Christians love litmus tests.  They love litmus tests that determine who is in and who is out, who is theologically rigorous and right and who is theologically liberal and limp (note: there is no greater insult within traditional evangelical churches than the charge of liberalism.  It is the "witch hunt" of our day!)

For a long time, the litmus test was simply about being "born again".  If you didn't have a "born again" story (preferably with a date and time attached), you probably were not a "real Christian".

Then the issue turned polictical: abortion.  That was the true test of whether you were truly a Christian.

Then back to theology: "inerrancy of scripture" became the new litmus test.

And now? Gays.

How you feel about gays is the new litmus test, and God have mercy on you if you get it wrong!

For example, mega-church pastor Andy Stanley is now being accused of being a "liberal" (read: heretic, deceptor, false teacher) for a recent sermon he gave in which he used an illustration from his own pastoral ministry about homosexuality, but did not condemn homosexuality as sinful (he also did not say that it wasn't sinful).  You can read about the dust up here and here.  

For the record, Andy Stanley is one of the most bonified evangelicals you will ever find -- and I mean that in the good sense.  He is a classic evangelical running a successful church that is leading people into authentic relationships with Jesus, impacting their community, teaching the Bible, serving those in need, etc.  Though I am sure Andy is more conservative than I am, I have nothing but respect for him and his ministry.

To accuse Andy of being a "liberal" who has abandoned the authority of scripture is absurd.  But this is where the new litmus test leads us.  Unless you recite the "right answer", the "company line" -- and do so without hesitancy or doubt -- you are out.

Among conservatives, there is no room for discussion, debate, wrestling, wondering, wandering or questioning.  There is no room for doubt, no room for theological diversity, no room for exploration. And there is certainly no room for gays and those who dare to believe that God does not condemn them all.

And so, to keep the church faithful, we apply these litmus tests.

And in so doing, we instantly transform the Good News from a message about amazing grace and radical inclusivity, to a message about exclusion, judgement, condemnation and close-mindedness.

In other words, we quickly stop becoming ministers of grace and ambassadors of Jesus, and become the New Pharisees.

Out of fear, the old line traditionalists have sacrificed fidelity to the Gospel of Jesus Christ at the altar of theological litmus tests.

And the saddest part to me is that as they deny grace to so many, they too fail to live in the joy that grace brings -- for they live in fear and judgement, not in the joy of grace and truth.

Is there any good news here?

Yes.

The good news is that the quiet desperation that traditionalists cling to is a sure sign that the battle has already been won by those whose vision of the Gospel and Jesus is one of love, inclusivity and amazing transformative grace.

Within 50 years, the "gay issue" will be no more of an issue in the church than women in leadership, inter-racial marriage, or a dozen other divisive issues.  People will wonder what the debate was ever about and history will reveal that the faithful remnant, again, will have preserved the true Gospel against the New Pharisees.

Are there still churches that deny women full and equal status to men?  Yes, but these churches are dying.

Are there still churhces that oppose inter-racial marriage?  Yes, but they are few and far between and universally written off as fundamentalist whack job racists.

Will there be churches that persist to persecute and condemn gay people?  Yes, but these churches will slowly die off and the ones that survive will too be relegated to the fringe of fundamentalst whack jobs.

The Good News?

Jesus always wins.

Which means that truth always wins.  

And that love always wins.

And all of this means that silly theological litmnus tests... always lose.

The Bible explicitly condemns several types of homosexual activity. It condemns homosexual rape, the homosexual abuse of person by otherwise heterosexual people (think "prison rape"), homosexual activity between an older adult and young boy, homosexual activity that is unnatural to the person practicing it, and all homosexual activity that is abusive, dehumanizing or based upon a power differential.

Some people interpret these prohibitions as being universal prohibitions against all homosexual activity. The logical argument is: If A-Example is Wrong, then A-Universal must be also wrong. (Prima facia, this logic is a fallacy.)

But the Bible also condemns many kinds of heterosexual practices, including rape, incest, adultery, etc.

Interestingly -- though certainly not surprisingly -- those who choose to interpret these prohibitions as being about all forms of homosexuality do not apply the same logic to the passages condemning and prohibiting certain examples of heterosexual activity.  

This inconsistent exegesis reveals not a committment to Biblical authority and inerrancy, as these people claim, but rather an adherence to a personally held bias veiled in spiritual language. The Bible says nothing about committed, loving gay relationships. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply lying.

To better understand why the Bible might take the time to condemn such abusive forms of homosexuality, a look inside a culture with similiar views of homosexuality as ancient Judaism might be helpful.

In Sunday's New York Times, there is an essay by Abdellah Taïa, a native of Morocco, who is gay. His essay is very powful and has narrative elements that are reminiscent of the Biblical story of Sodom and Gomorah.

Here is his essay in full:

IN the Morocco of the 1980s, where homosexuality did not, of course, exist, I was an effeminate little boy, a boy to be sacrificed, a humiliated body who bore upon himself every hypocrisy, everything left unsaid. By the time I was 10, though no one spoke of it, I knew what happened to boys like me in our impoverished society; they were designated victims, to be used, with everyone’s blessing, as easy sexual objects by frustrated men. And I knew that no one would save me — not even my parents, who surely loved me. For them too, I was shame, filth. A “zamel.”

Like everyone else, they urged me into a terrible, definitive silence, there to die a little more each day.

How is a child who loves his parents, his many siblings, his working-class culture, his religion — Islam — how is he to survive this trauma? To be hurt and harassed because of something others saw in me — something in the way I moved my hands, my inflections. A way of walking, my carriage. An easy intimacy with women, my mother and my many sisters. To be categorized for victimhood like those “emo” boys with long hair and skinny jeans who have recently been turning up dead in the streets of Iraq, their skulls crushed in.

The truth is, I don’t know how I survived. All I have left is a taste for silence. And the dream, never to be realized, that someone would save me. Now I am 38 years old, and I can state without fanfare: no one saved me.

I no longer remember the child, the teenager, I was. I know I was effeminate and aware that being so obviously “like that” was wrong. God did not love me. I had strayed from the path. Or so I was made to understand. Not only by my family, but also by the entire neighborhood. And I learned my lesson perfectly. So deep down, I tell myself they won. This is what happened.

I was barely 12, and in my neighborhood they called me “the little girl.” Even those I persisted in playing soccer with used that nickname, that insult. Even the teenagers who’d once taken part with me in the same sexual games. I was no kid anymore. My body was changing, stretching out, becoming a man’s. But others did not see me as a man. The image of myself they reflected back at me was strange and incomprehensible. Attempts at rape and abuse multiplied.

I knew it wasn’t good to be as I was. But what was I going to do? Change? Speak to my mother, my big brother? And tell them what, exactly?

It all came to a head one summer night in 1985. It was too hot. Everyone was trying in vain to fall asleep. I, too, lay awake, on the floor beside my sisters, my mother close by. Suddenly, the familiar voices of drunken men reached us. We all heard them. The whole family. The whole neighborhood. The whole world. These men, whom we all knew quite well, cried out: “Abdellah, little girl, come down. Come down. Wake up and come down. We all want you. Come down, Abdellah. Don’t be afraid. We won’t hurt you. We just want to have sex with you.”

They kept yelling for a long time. My nickname. Their desire. Their crime. They said everything that went unsaid in the too-silent, too-respectful world where I lived. But I was far, then, from any such analysis, from understanding that the problem wasn’t me. I was simply afraid. Very afraid. And I hoped my big brother, my hero, would rise and answer them. That he would protect me, at least with words. I didn’t want him to fight them — no. All I wanted him to say were these few little words: “Go away! Leave my little brother alone.”

But my brother, the absolute monarch of our family, did nothing. Everyone turned their back on me. Everyone killed me that night. I don’t know where I found the strength, but I didn’t cry. I just squeezed my eyes shut a bit more tightly. And shut, with the same motion, everything else in me. Everything. I was never the same Abdellah Taïa after that night. To save my skin, I killed myself. And that was how I did it.

I began by keeping my head low all the time. I cut all ties with the children in the neighborhood. I altered my behavior. I kept myself in check: no more feminine gestures, no more honeyed voice, no more hanging around women. No more anything. I had to invent a whole new Abdellah. I bent myself to the task with great determination, and with the realization that this world was no longer my world. Sooner or later, I would leave it behind. I would grow up and find freedom somewhere else. But in the meantime I would become hard. Very hard.

TODAY I grow nostalgic for little effeminate Abdellah. He and I share a body, but I no longer remember him. He was innocence. Now I am only intellect. He was naïve. I am clever. He was spontaneous. I am locked in a constant struggle with myself.

In 2006, seven years after I moved to France, and after my second book, “Le rouge du tarbouche” (the red of the fez), came out in Morocco, I, too, came out to the Moroccan press, in Arabic and French. Scandal, and support. Then, faced with my brother’s silence and my mother’s tears on the telephone, I published in TelQuel, the very brave Moroccan magazine, an open letter called “Homosexuality Explained to My Mother.” My mother died the next year.

I don’t know where I found the courage to become a writer and use my books to impose my homosexuality on the world of my youth. To do justice to little Abdellah. To never forget the trauma he and every Arab homosexual like him suffered.

Now, over a year after the Arab Spring began, we must again remember homosexuals. Arabs have finally become aware that they have to invent a new, free Arab individual, without the support of their megalomaniacal leaders. Arab homosexuals are also taking part in this revolution, whether they live in Egypt, Iraq or Morocco. They, too, are part of this desperately needed process of political and individual liberation. And the world must support and protect them.

This story is tragic. And I believe it makes God angry -- how this child, created in His image, has been treated.  And I think it reveals why God would condemn such abusive forms of homosexuality.

THOUGHTS?

Those who think unless you wear a white sheet or hang a confederate flag, you aren't a racist, are terribly naive. Racism is much more subtle and destructive than that. Racism is in how we see people, profile people, and react to people in different contexts.

This is the honest conversation we must be willing to have together. If Treyvon had been white, he would be alive today. If the shooter had been black, he would be in jail.

The answer is not to pretend race doesn't exist, but to sit down over coffee -- or a beer or shared meal -- and actually have these conversations with each other. The answer also includes a lot of corporate reflection and confession and a willingness to acknowledge our own bias and issues.

We also need to remember that racism is both about individuals and about systemic and cultural discrimination. While individual racists are abhorrent, the truth is that it is the systemic and cultural racism that is more dangerous and destructive.

Individual racists can be ignored, marginalized, laughed at and easily dismissed as crazy loons. But systemic racism cannot be ignored or laughed at... it is a disease that destroys our souls.

As a seminary professor I had used to say, if you put a cucumber in vinegar long enough, it will become a pickle. Systemic racism is the vinegar of our society... pickling all of us. We need to change the environment to change the culture. It starts with acknowledgement and conversation.

Hopefully, this case will lead to some important dialogue and reflection.

As always, imho.