Proposition 8 in California has passed.
I'm not in a very good mood.
For those who don't know, we has a measure on the ballot in California seeking to "restore" tradidtional marriage as being defined as "between a man and a woman." This really translates to repealling a decision by four Supreme Court Justices in our state that allowed for the recognition of gay marriages under the law (i.e.: denying what SHOULD be civil rights).
I spent the last week approaching people on the streets in Ventura and in Westlake village not to quarrel, but to engage in something we used to call "civilized discourse." On my first attempt, I passed a man filling up his tank at a gas station near the corner the "Yes on 8" picketers were whooping and hollering, signs held proudly aloft. The man began screaming anfd yelling at the people, and held up a solitary finger in crude disobediance. Almost with a knee-jerk reaction, I turned to him and mentioned that this was not the right way to go about rejecting the crowd's beliefs, and that it only "drives people away from your cause." He thanked me but told me politely that this is how he views people who seek to take away civil rights. He was just as ham-handed in his explanation as he was in the expression of his anger. To each his own.
I continued on and spoke to an older man holding up one of the signs.
"Hi. I've decided to talk to 'Yes on Prop 8' proponents to see their point-of-view first-hand. What's at stake here, my friend?"
"Well, in Genesis . . . . " he began. Another knee-jerk reaction: my eyeballs did a 180. I was stimulated by the taste of blood in my mouth as I bit tongue off from in an effort to keep my mouth shut. A younger man approached me and tried to explain in more . . . uh . . . . logical terms his position on the matter. We had a great discussion on the matter, and ended up agreeing to disagree before shaking hands. He ended it by saying that he feels successful individuals come from "happy" families. Bite my tongue . . . Before I left, I reminded him of the widespread practice of bi- and homosexual behavior in socieites from Greco-Roman to Native American eras (Native American tribes believed in a third sex).
My next encounter The next time was on November 3rd, just two days ago. This one was far less civil, and I spent a good deal of my time talking two three kids who couldn't have been more than 16 and were much more willing to diverge in opinion, even amongst themselves. One of them, told me to read Timothy 1:10. I did. Here's the King James interpretation:
"For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine"
Hold on a second, though. Many translations of this verse include use of the word "sodomy." The use of the term "sodomy" or "sodomites" in some interpretations of this verse comes from translation of the word 'arsenokoitais', which has puzzled Biblical scholars for eons. For starters, the word only appear twice in the Bible, and halved into its Greek counterparts, becomes the words "male" and "koiten" (coitus or "sexual intercourse), meaning "male intercourse." There are other interpretations, but there are a great many who believe that the abnormity of the word itself means that Paul simply made it up. It has been concluded by many that the term simply means "male prostitution," among a litany of other possible interpretations. This passage is said to have been written by Paul of Tarsus himself, and yet it is found only in Corinthians and Timothy.
Elsewhere, the Bible preaches against prostitution, also practiced by males at the time. In his book "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, John Boswell argues that 'arsenokoitais' in 1 Corinthians 6:19 and 1 Timothy 1:10 refers to male prostitution specifically. This is an extremely common claim and one made by Biblical scholars all over the world.
The idea that "man shalt not lay down with his brother" is frequently used, and it is also believed to refer to the practice of incest. This oft-used phrase seems lifted from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the city of Sin crushed by God himself for its immoral sexual behavior. In it is the story of Lot, who is said to have offered his daughters up for rape to a mob, while his wie is turned into a pillar of salt for looking behind her. The father has sex with both of his daughters who deliver healthy babies. The term used to refer to homosexuality in this story has been translated merely to "know," the same term used to refer to "sexual relations" elsewhere in the Bible, and many scholars maintain that the ambiguity of the term and the text mean that it cannot be used to condemn homosexuality outright.
The morality of this early Biblical story has bee drawn into question, period, with critics arguing that a story including a father offering up his daughters for gang rape, comitting acts of incest with them, having inbred children, and the killing of Lot's wife cannot justifiably be used to condemn homosexuality.
The people who use many of these passages to outlaw homosexual behavior seem to be overlooking a few glaring sins comitted in the very same stories. I think it's past time to set the record straight on homosexuality in the Bible.
I reminded members of both crowds that civil rights are always contested in our country's history, but that, under our system, they always seem to end up passing eventually, and concluded by asking them if they feel comfoprtable that they history may not end up looking upon them as kindly as they'd like. Like it or not, our country has a history of hard-fought and lengthy battles over civil rights in which these rights end up being instituted begrudgingly by the pillars of justice. Half a century later, we aways end up feeling ashamed at ourselves for not instituting these rights earlier. I hope these people can live with being on "the wrong side of history."
