Vote NO

If you're reading this and live in Wisconsin, you know (or should know) that there is an referendum on the November ballot to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and civil unions. I've been home this week, working on various projects, and the candidates and representatives are knocking on doors. In the past I've taken their literature and discouraged conversation. Now, with my state assembly representative in jail, there are 5 Republicans vying for his vacant seat. There's a Democrat on the ballot, too, but hey - this is not a Democratic area.

So I'm asking questions: How does he stand on the death penalty (another referendum question)? How does he (they're all he's, don't ding me for sexist language) feel about equal access to education? Access to abortion and family planning? And - where does he stand on the referendum on banning gay marriage and civil unions?

Interestingly, one candidate's worker didn't know there was a referendum on a constitutional amendment about marriage. Then she had to think it through, while I waited, to figure out how her candidate stood on it. "I think he's for it." Well, then, he won't get any votes from this household - and four of us vote now.

I told the candidate who knocked on my door yesterday that there was a religious left, too - and we're voting.

Nobody's come up with right answers across the board yet.

Thoughts on Language: "Partners"

Partners.

"Thinking Out Loud Again"

I started thinking about the term "partners" when I heard a snippet of dialog on a CD book I listened to recently. The book is a mystery entitled Snow Blind by P.J. Tracy. The scene is a snowman-building contest sponsored by the Minneapolis Police Dept. A child is talking to an out-of-uniform police officer, who makes a reference to another officer being his partner. Meaning, the person with whom he is paired to work. The child's response is "Funny, you don't look gay." Hmmmm....

In a recent article in the UU World, there's an excerpt from The Other Mother, a book about lesbians and their children. In it one woman describes trying to visit her partner after the birth of their daughter and being challenged by a nurse when she tried to explain they were partners. Business partners? Sorry - only immediate family can visit, was the gist of the response. The woman also describes trying to explain partnership to a number of uncomprehending people, who are curious in what sort of business they're partners together.

In conversation with a few ministers and seminarians recently, several referred to their "partners." The people doing this are in heterosexual marriages, using a term that has come into common usage to mean, as far as I can tell, "the person I would marry if the law allowed it/my same-gender life-partner." I know some happily unmarried straight people use the term also, but why are some married straight people now using the term? An attempt at solidarity, at neutralizing traditional spousal language? Maybe to shake up the status quo and cause some confusion?

Or maybe it's a reaction to the over-labeling that I feel happens. At every workshop at GA it seemed the presenter(s) spent a huge chunk of time just reciting all the categories they could belong to; e.g., mostly white, mostly straight, married, female, parent, pet owner, librarian, seminarian, square dancer. Granted, these are all pieces of one person's life - but do we need to throw it all out there at once? Are we our labels, or are we more than the sum of our labels?

I'm not so politically correct. My dh is my spouse, my partner, my love, my best friend, my rock, and yes, my legally wedded husband. I know husband and wife aren't perfect terms, either, because they imply gender roles that don't necessarily apply. But we do generally know something about the relationship being described. The gender-neutral term is spouse. I use the term partner for friends who define their relationships that way, but I think "spouse" is a more accurate term than "partner" for a number of relationships. There's a quality of relationship that is captured that partner doesn't express - and then partner is left for those relationships that don't have that quality in them.

I'm kind of old-fashioned, and I like the linguistic clarity. I had the good fortune to hear a talk by Southern writer Rita Mae Brown a number of years ago. Someone asked her a question about coming out. Her response was something like this - she'd grown up knowing that there were people who were "that way," and eventually she figured out she was "that way," too. She commented that a lot of pain and suffering would be saved if everyone would just be who they were, and say it, rather than trying to hide in closets - or to change themselves via ill-advised marriages. I think she said something like, "people need to know who is really available to them as possible mates -- and we can't know that if people are forced to lie about who they really are."

I'm not so sure "partner" is going to be sufficient for the long haul. Maybe we need a new, clearer, way to refer to the partnerships that are more like spousal relationships, and less like two cops assigned to work together.

Getting through the hard night

This post is a response to the UU Blog Carnival question. There's no link here, because I'm not sure yet if I'm actually going to send it in. The question asked is:

“What gets you through the hard night?” More specifically, what is it in our faith tradition, that brings you the strength and/or comfort you need to face difficult times? Are there theological concepts, specific words, hymns, practices that sustain you in trying times?

The Theology in the Music.
I'm not a singer. The junior high music teacher once said to me, "Don't sing, just mouth the words." So I stopped singing. Until I had children, I didn't sing at home. Until I facilitated the Rise Up and Call Her Name curriculum and had to lead participants in its chants, I didn't sing in public. For years.

I've heard groaning about our hymnal, and jokes about how we UU's sing so poorly because we're reading ahead to see if we agree with the words. But, there's a lot of theology embedded in the hymns' lyrics. There are a few that I sing when I need an energy lift, or a reminder of where my strength comes from, or when I feel like the world is not going to make it through another day.

The theology expressed in our music becomes part of us - anyone who can still sing along with pop tunes from 2 decades (or more) ago, knows that what we learn in a musical or rhythmic way sticks with us. For example, I can still recite, verbatim, most of my son's favorite picture book from 18 years ago, which is written in a rhythmic rhyming style. My dh can recite huge chunks of Dr. Seuss books for the same reason. In the same way, some beloved hymn lyrics stick with me - and their messages get me through some difficult times.

So, here are some examples of theology in music that helps me, most often by calling me to stop worrying about "me" and do something:

In my home church, we sing the same chalice lighting response almost every week. When the worship committee considered changing it, a few parents objected, because their younger kids loved singing that song. That's when I began to realize that we were using a very powerful medium to teach theological concepts, and they were being ingrained through repetition. "May love shine forth through us today, May light of reason guide our way, May beauty truth and joy become, A flame that burns in everyone." Easily memorized, it contains a succinct statement of theology and practice: Love each other & show it, search for truth critically, encourage each other.

Love Will Guide Us (#131) is an everyday stress sort of song, and sort of a "gimme" here. After all - the question could be derived from the lyrics. It's just three short, up-tempo verses, containing a whole theological statement:

1. "Love will guide us/Peace has tried us/Hope inside us/Will lead the way/On the road from/Greed to giving/Love will guide us/Through the hard night."
2. "If you cannot/Sing like angels/If you cannot/Speak before thousands/You can give from/Deep within you/You can change the world/With your love." (and the third verse just repeats the first)

It's reassuring & uplifting - sort of like the quote from Mother Teresa about being able to do the small things with great love, because not everyone gets to do the great things. There's a lot going on in these simple words - faith that love will lead us home, commentary on social justice, and a reassurance that the smallest act can be the one that makes all the difference.

This is My Song (#159) is, for me, a deep prayer for survival. Even as a non-theist, I can sing to "God of all the nations," and resonate with the images the words evoke. So, maybe the god of all the nations for me is the possibility of humanity coming together to live in peace...it's still not a bad prayer. This is my home - but others have homes and dreams, and we don't all get there, unless we all get there. The goal of peace is not just for me & mine, but for everyone.

My kids have grown up going to a UU family camp. There's a song they sing there that goes "How could anyone ever tell you, you were anything less than beautiful? How could anyone ever tell you, you were less than whole?..." There's another theological statement, straight out of our first principle, and I know it's a message that has cracked some of hard adolescent shells. The high schoolers at camp presented a vespers program this year, which was the usual mix of silliness and shyness and uncertainty. Until they sang that song. Every single teen sobered up, grabbed hands or draped arms around each other, stood tall and sang as if their lives depended on it. These kids have internalized the first principle in a beautiful way. Because I know many of them personally, I can testify to their kindness and compassion not only for each other, but for others in their lives. And they learned it, painlessly, by singing.

May love shine forth through me today
May light of reason guide my way
May I help beauty, truth and joy become
A flame that burns in everyone.

What I Worship

There's been an interesting discussion on some UU blogs about worship, what it is and what we are worshipping in our churches. There is special interest in what those of us who don't call ourselves theists are doing in church, if we're not worshipping god.

One blogger, (calling herself a "fuzzy theist") wrote:

"I don’t so much worship God in Sunday services as I celebrate the human community and the other people in the room and in my heart. Worship, for me, is a coming together, a reflection, a time out of time to take stock, to remember that I am not alone in my fears, joys, angst, insecurities, loneliness, what have you."

Another UU blogger, wrote:

I still don't know what Unitarian Universalists are worshiping if they are not worshiping God or, in the words of the hymn, "hallowing the world God hath made."
If they are gathering to worship in the name of the Holy, in the acknowledgment that this world contains a spark of the sacred, I got no beef with that. If folks don't want to use the word "God," well, okay. Considering that "God" is the nickname most people on the planet give to that "that transcending mystery and wonder which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces and create and uphold life,"* it's kind of eccentric for us to keep avoiding it. But still, okay. Spirit of Life and Love, okay with me.

As an 'earthbound spirit,' I'm not a theist. I'm willing to cede the possibility of a supernatural being, but I don't presently worship one. I live in the tension of being rational and spiritual. I find myself transformed by worshipping, by leading worship, by creating worship. I go to church, and I worship. But I don't worship God. I think the celebration of community gets to a big part of what worship is, for me. Worship for me includes remembering, reminding, reconnecting, revering, and returning.

What do I worship? I worship, I hold in reverence and awe, the ultimate reality - material reality and whatever it is that is responsible for our being. This is in the amazing way the universe is formed, that evolution works, that our bodies are put together with the same basic building blocks as that of ferns and hummingbirds and lions - and yet are so different. It is in the way everything needed to become an oak tree is contained in an acorn, just add water, dirt, and sunshine. It is whatever force or happy accident causes evolution, and all the other scientific processes which make the universe exist and work in the way it does.

I'm too much of a rationalist to think that a supernatural being is responsible - there's no evidence of such a being. So, for me, the holy is immanent in the universe as it is. But there is Mystery - while we may know more and more how the world works, I don't think we'll ever know everything - it's not possible. David Bumbaugh says that the universe isn't just stranger than we know, but stranger than we can know. (reference)

There is something which I call sacred, holy, divine, Mystery - but I don't usually call it God. Because it may be part of nature that we don't know, can never know. With all due respect, "God" is more than the nickname for our first source (transcending sense of mystery and wonder). I think "God" to a traditional theist refers specifically to a supernatural being, not a sense; a creator-deity, not mystery. Problem is, unless we're all going to become religiously multi-lingual, "God" is the best shorthand way of referring to all sorts of transcendent(s), whether beings, senses, or Mystery. So, the word does cross my lips occasionally, usually followed by many more defining what "God" means to me.

What is worship? The first UU minister I ever encountered called himself a religious humanist, and described worship in our "new UU class" as the act of "shaping that which is of worth." A decade and a half later, I'm still working on unpacking that phrase, but here's what I've got so far. Your mileage may vary.

Part of it is 're-membering': bringing people together, reminding us that we're not the be-all and end-all of creation (so to speak). Reminding us that we are not apart from nature, but a part of nature, that we are just a small piece of the whole puzzle that is reality. On the other hand, it is also a reminder that, until we know otherwise, humanity is the highest form of life. With that comes the responsibility of discerning what is of worth, and of being stewards as best as we are able of what is and what is yet to be. It is the shaping of our hearts and souls, if you will, into an attitude of humility and gratitude.

We shape what is of worth in worship by acknowledging our need for one another in our coming together - to celebrate our common hopes, aspirations, values, and to acknowledge our inadequacy as individuals. We come together in (I love this phrase): 'a covenanted religious community,' to reconnect, to bind up what's broken, support those who are in need of help, and rejoice in the awesome privilege and responsibility of being human and being alive.

We shape the ritual, and the ritual of worship shapes us as it makes an opportunity for the holy to appear. We praise, we confess, we pray, we seek forgiveness, we seek integration and wholeness. We revere "that transcending sense of mystery and wonder" - how snowflakes and people are each one unique, how hummingbirds and bees achieve impossible flight, how the building blocks of life create an infinity of life forms. That's my sense of mystery - the next person may call it God. If we're blessedly lucky the ever-shy spirit pours forth and transforms us in our acts of worship. Then, we return to the world, and worship some more by working for its transformation.

What do I do in church, if I don't worship God? I remember who I am, in a community of others. I remind myself of my own limitations, and that together we can accomplish far more than we can individually. I pray. I seek a re-connection, to be made whole. I re-commit myself to the work of transforming the world. I name that which is worthy of reverence. I return to the world, ready to face another week. I simply worship.

(At least, that's the goal. Sometimes it's just a nice hour of contemplation, spent in good company with nice music. But that's good, too.)

Armor of God?

We live in a time when one can buy almost anything, don't we? This is a "thinking out loud" post, so be forewarned.

Okay, the photo is from Rose Publishing, because the photos from this website aren't in jpeg format. You can now purchase armor of god pajamas for your kids - to make them feel safe and cozy all night long. Based on the Epistle to the Ephesians (6:10-18), the "whole armor of God" includes: the belt of truth, the breastplate of righteousness, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit. (I looked it up - getting familiar with the Bible is sometimes helpful.) The shield looks like it can be used as a pillow. Matching blankets to be available soon.

I'm not trying to be flip or hyper-critical. I rather like the idea of putting on figurative armor to face the day, even if I wouldn't envision a sword for the Spirit, or a shield for faith. I think a sword is a little anachronistic and violent, and a shield's protection can become isolation... I'll do some more thinking about what kind of armor I'd like...

Here's what I want to know: Where's the critical thinking cap? Or the light of discovery candle? What would you include in a child's - or adult's - or your -essential spiritual armor? Does the helmet of salvation make sense to you?

(I'm not above a little creative imagination. When my children were young, I gave them "magic tea" (peppermint) to help with tummy aches caused by anxiety. But there's a difference between offering something tangible that might actually soothe a jumpy tummy, and plunking a helmet of salvation on a kid's head and telling them not to worry about bad dreams because god's angels will protect her. Or am I blowing this way out of proportion?)

Hmmmm. More later, maybe.

Root Beer - Local Pride!

Lingering over my coffee this morning, in no hurry to get on with the busy-ness of the day, I heard NPR host Scott Simon talking about this being the 200th anniversary of the debut of root beer, invented by Charles Hires. You can listen to the story here.

To my delight, there was an on-air "taste test." The root beer expert liked an obscure brand only available at the source in Arizona. The guest taster said "I'd drive to Wisconsin from here" to get her favorite, Sprecher! It's our favorite, too - especially our root-beer-loving R. DH even bought some of the root beer syrup at the State Fair, and enjoys it on his ice cream.

Do you think we need to worry about a shortage of Sprecher Root Beer, now that it's famous??? Maybe we need to stock up...

South Africa Next to Legalize Gay Marriage?

That's what CNN is reporting here. Their supreme court equivalent ruled last December that gays & lesbians must be allowed to marry, under their constitution. Now there is a bill in parliament to redefine marriage to allow gays & lesbians to marry, bringing the law into line with the constitution.

Something I don't get - maybe I'm naive. Why is there so much insistence on referendum and public opinion? Seriously. If public opinion were always followed, it would have taken a lot longer for the US to abolish slavery, for women to get the vote, for the civil rights act to be passed. Martin Luther King, Jr. said it best, as I paraphrase -- "The law might not stop someone from hating me, but it can stop someone from lynching me."

Moving on, Mentoring, exhaustion

It's been a busy couple of days. M* has moved to college. She's sharing an apartment with 2 or 3 other young women (1 was MIA on move-in day), ready to try her wings. Bittersweet emotion - sad to see her go, happy she's moving forward & following her bliss.

DH's employer had a "community service day" today - an annual event. Thousands of people descended on the city's public schools to paint, fix up, landscape, repair, decorate, etc. We both participated. Our group "mentored," at a year-round school, which really wasn't mentoring, more like one-shot guest tutoring. (I think mentoring is an ongoing activity, a mentor is one who is actively involved with a person or group over a longer period of time.) Other groups at the same location were painting classrooms and game courts on the playground. The kids seemed to enjoy having visitors in their classes, and I think many of the mentors learned something about education in a public school that has low funding.

I'm just exhausted - so many changes in life, so many issues and projects need attention. Going to bed early...

A Little More on Weddings...

A backyard wedding took place in our family almost two years ago now. S & W, both with grown children promised to live, love and care for each other. They're still quite happy together. Weddings are different when the people involved are older, have lived some & learned some. It's also different when they come into the relationship with children/adult children, etc. Blending households, getting pets accustomed to each other, making new accomodations for family on holidays and accepting that it's just a fact that not everyone is going to be pleased all the time. I celebrate this couple for their courage and commitment, for their willingness to take the big risk and marry again.

A lot of thinking goes on in the back of my mind about the proposed ban on gay marriage and civil unions in my home state. A religious conservative friend of mine says he has no problem with gay folks having legally sanctioned relationships, just that they shouldn't call it "marriage." To him, that word is bound up in religion, and he doesn't want his faith tradition required to sanction what (to them) are unholy unions. I understand his point of view. I think it's wrong, but I understand it - and in this pluralistic society we need to make some accomodations for different religious viewpoints.

But - I really don't like the way civil unions have been done. To date, the state-sanctioned gay marriages or civil unions are only valid within those specific states. The unions are not legally valid in any other state, nor are they valid for claiming federal tax benefits for married couples. To me, this is "separate but unequal" and it's not just.

I really think that everyone should have to have a "civil union" for the legal sanctions and benefits. Then, if the couple chooses to have a religious ceremony as well, that is a separate transaction. A couple could choose to have the religious ceremony then register their union with the state by taking out a marriage license and making brief vows in the registrar's office, or they could choose to only get the marriage license and register with the state if they have no religious inclinations. All couples should have equal access to the legal registration, and all should receive the benefits accorded by the state and federal governments.

And - it needs to be called marriage, folks, for everyone. In my opinion, promoting separate-but-unequal civil unions does more to erode the institution of marriage than opening the doors of the institution to include everyone.

People See What They Want to See

(photo from cnn.com)

The Virgin Mary in chocolate? Oh, Please. That's what workers at a chocolate factory are saying this little chocolate stalagmite looks like. (What does it look like to you?) You can read the story here. At least the report it as "offbeat" news.

I believe the worker who said she got chills seeing the VM in the chocolate. But, I used to get the shiver up my spine when I was a kid and saw something in the corner that looked like a person - or monster. It always turned out to be some combination of clothes on a chair, plus shadow, plus my myopic eyes creating an image that my mind translated weirdly.

Critical thinking - get it, use it, spread the good news. And yea, the crackpots shall be healed and the confused made clear!

Made for Running

(image from glenn-roberson.com, accessed via google images)

I've been reading a bit of Ted Kooser's Local Wonders every night before bed. Here's a paragraph from last night:

"For the past few years it's been fashionable for young women to wear ball caps and to snap the strap on the back under their ponytails. I like the looks of that, their shiny ponytails jauntily swinging, but it's hard not to think of the rear ends of horses. There's a piece of harness called the crupper that goes just under a horse's tail to keep its nose down. If the horse lifts its head to look for a way out of whatever predicament it's in, the crupper tightens and hurts the horse. But it's foolish for parents to think that a ball cap might keep a young woman from running away. Anybody can see they're made for running." (p. 90)

So, I guess the crupper's purpose is to keep a horse from bolting if s/he gets spooked? I really like the way Kooser makes this parallel work, without sounding overly sexist. The image conjured in my mind is of my oldest daughter, who often wears a ponytail (though not with a ball cap), and the way she's SO poised to dash off into life on her own. So sure of where she's going and what she wants. So sure everything will work out for her in the end. So ready to take the reins with the briefest of lessons on driving the horse.

I remember being in that lifespace just a little while ago (3 decades? - it is like yesterday...). Ah, to feel like that again...

Of course, life teaches us all that where we think we're going may not really be where we want to go. And that things work out, but not always as originally planned!
(image: www.runnersrescue.com)

To Believe or Not To Believe: your choice

For your consideration & enjoyment:

An interesting video about famous atheists can be found here. The film also includes various statistics - some of which are debatable if you want to split hairs and question definitions. Anyway... Dan Barker from the Freedom From Religion Foundation spoke at church this Sunday. An atheist in church??? Well, this is a Unitarian Universalist church. I wasn't there, but DH was. He reported that an important point Barker made was that "atheism" as such is not a belief system. It's only a response to one question, that of the existence of a god/supernatural being.

Another interesting point Barker made - when he was an evangelical christian, he felt persecuted by society for his beliefs. He learned what it really was to be persecuted since he became an outspoken atheist...

Random Thoughts on Weddings/Commitments/Unions

I'm thinking out loud, here, so to speak.

DH & I attended a commitment ceremony yesterday. It's the first "wedding-like ritual" we've attended where there was no change in the partners' legal status afterward. Our friend N and her partner B (who is a man), publicly made a covenant of love and caring and commitment to each other. For personal reasons neither wanted the state to be involved, so they chose to have a commitment ceremony rather than a wedding.

It was a lovely ceremony. The weather was gorgeous, warm but not too warm, not a cloud in the sky. The setting was great - in a park overlooking shores of a Great Lake. The readings were well-chosen and profound. N looked beautiful, B looked dashing, and the words of love and commitment (a/k/a vows) they spoke were heartfelt and personal. Those of us who gathered as witnesses were moved by the various elements of the event - even the silly part where we all blew soap bubbles at the end!

As a seminarian, I look forward to officiating at weddings & services of union for many couples in the future. Some will be "official" weddings, with marriage licenses, rings, and reasonably traditional relationships. Others will be services like this - rituals to publicly state a private commitment that doesn't involve the state for whatever reason.

I love the idea of commitment ceremonies, or services of union, or whatever name you choose to give them. And yet, I have to wonder how they make a difference. As DH asked later that evening, "What really changed? How is their relationship different?" I'm not sure how to answer that. I'm not sure why they didn't want to be legally married, with the attendant benefits & protections. The only thing I'm pretty sure of is that it made a difference to them. And that's what's important - even if I still see the same couple, with the same love & commitment as before.

***

I have two good friends who are men, who have loved each other & lived together for over 15 years, and consider themselves married. They've even been married - by a minister - but it's not legal because they're gay. (Nor are they UUs, but that may be beside the point.) As I began mulling over this topic I wondered: "Is their commitment different substantially than that of N & B?" If the guys were able to be legally married, I'm pretty sure they would be at the license bureau in a flash. They would like to have the legal protections and benefits that come with a state-sanctioned union.

I do know that I feel that these two men have made as much of a commitment to each other as they are able (legally) at this point - and I celebrate that. Fortunately, they have loving families who have accepted them for who they are and honor them as a couple. I can't reconcile the anti-gay marriage stance of many religious folks with the universal acceptance of/preference for the marginalized that Christ taught.

***

Why does a couple who *can* be married, opt not to? Why can't the male couple get married, when they've obviously demonstrated a level of commitment and fidelity I'd like to see in some of the straight couples I know?

Well - I know why some don't. Some don't get legally married because they would LOSE benefits. Elderly couples who marry wind up living on less because Social Security benefits get reduced. I know one couple who won't legally marry because she receives survivor benefits from her late husband's employer. She'd lose the health insurance she NEEDS if she married her partner. There's something wrong with this picture...

But - why does a couple who can be married, who would benefit from the marriage financially, etc., choose not to? I'm still wondering about that.

***

Isn't marriage supposed to be a stabilizing factor for relationships and society? Shouldn't we be encouraging marriage, fidelity & commitment for the good of society -not to mention for the benefit of children (yes, gay & lesbian people have children)? Seems like it would be a good thing to allow every couple who wishes to have a civil marriage. It would benefit society & the people involved, in my opinion. It's puzzling to me...

***

Some ministers are refusing to sign marriage licenses, refusing to be agents of the state, until gays are able to marry & enjoy the benefits & responsibilities that straight couples can. In theory, I support this - in practice, not so much. I was thinking this was a perfect protest, but on further thought I think it's demonstrative politics all over again - we're out there waving a protest sign so everyone knows what we think.

The protest has no teeth - mostly because (as I see it) it's just a handful of very liberal ministers acting. I don't think they'll be changing anyone's opinion. Sraight couples can find another minister & get married; the gay couples still can't - and a minister refusing to sign a marriage license has no effect. No effect, except to alienate one's congregants - or one's friends/family who might wish the minister to perform marriages. I'm still pondering, but I see no reason not to sign marriage licenses (not that I can, yet...).

***

So I wind up back where I started, with more questions than answers.

Too funny

It's a slow day...

I'm in the middle of reading Christopher Moore's Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal. It is hilarious! I highly recommend it to all my seminary cohorts. You can read an interview with the author here.