Pro-Gay, Pro-Trans, & Pro-Choice, with Bible Verses

Pro-Gay, Pro-Trans, & Pro-Choice, with Bible Verses (by Rev. Dr. Durrell Watkins)

On the sub/Reddit thread “Gay Christians” a straight identified poster asked, “Is being gay ever approved or said as okay by God or Jesus in the bible? Is transitioning to a different gender a sin? And do you (a gay Christian) believe in abortions (why or why not)? It would be nice for scripture to be included [in your response]. Asking because I’m curious.”

A day later, the OP (original poster) had received 25 responses, including this one from me:

The very few verses used to condemn LGBTQ people are all in the context of violence or exploitation. Love is never condemned.

We now know that gender isn't binary so "transitioning" is just a matter of coming to terms with one's gender experience & identity & then living in one's truth. Eunuchs in the Bible were considered a sort of third gender and Isaiah says they have a special place in God's all-inclusive house of prayer.

I am pro-choice. I believe everyone should have bodily autonomy. In the creation myth Adam is just a body until the breath of life enters him. His life begins with the ability to breathe on his own, not with simply being formed.

Those biblical nods were because you asked for them. I actually do not limit my moral reasoning to ancient texts that have been interpreted in countless ways & used to justify such horrors as war & slavery. I study scripture but I don't use it in place of independent thinking.

That said, I will add a verse that I find to be true, not because it's in a sacred book but because it has proven to be healing in my own life: "God is Love & WHOEVER lives in love lives in God & God lives in them."

Pastoral Response to the SCOTUS "Hobby Lobby" Decision

"[MCC] affirms that all people are entitled to the rights and resources that equip them to make their own decisions about their bodies, their sexuality, and their well-being, including the inalienable right of women to control their bodies. We call on all levels of government and civil society to honor and respect those rights." from MCC's Statement of Faith on Women's Reproductive Health, Rights, & Justice

Companions on the spiritual journey:

As a faith leader and a parish minister, I stand in solidarity with other people of faith who are outraged by the US Supreme Court's decision on June 30th, 2014 in the "Hobby Lobby" case. The Court ruled that requiring family-owned corporations to pay for insurance coverage for contraception violated a federal law protecting religious freedom. This decision, in my view, privileges the religious biases of a company's owners while treading on the rights and freedoms of individuals.

As so many leaders have already stated, this decision opens the door for a series of injustices. If legal medications can be denied because of someone's religious views (other than the one taking the medication), then it is entirely possible that family owned business could refuse to offer medical coverage for blood transfusions, AIDS therapies, vaccinations, psychiatric medications, medical marijuana, or any number of medical procedures because someone other than the recipient of the legal medications objected to them for "religious" reasons. Dogma is rarely life-enhancing and in this instance may prove to be very dangerous.

As a religious progressive, I support the idea that universal health care is a right, not a privilege; and I further affirm the verity that that neither churches nor corporations nor governments own human bodies and women are the ultimate authority when it comes to their own health care and procreative choices.

LBGT people know what it is to be judged, marginalized, and vilified for their consensual, adult relationships and gender identities; in other words, the Queer community knows what it means to have their bodies and their sovereignty over them diminished. As a Queer man I object to the colonization of bodies even (and maybe especially) when it is done in the name of religion.

The consciences, needs, and values of workers were ruled to be secondary to the religious opinions of business owners in the June 30th decision. The values of the powerful and privileged were affirmed while the values of workers of modest means were dismissed, and that is not justice.

It is time that people of faith insist that patriarchy and its wayward children: heteronormativity, racism, nationalism, and misogyny cease to be elevated to the position of religious values. It is time that we speak out more passionately than ever before when we see people being punished for their class, gender identity, sexuality, or procreative choices.

Yours in the spirit of justice-love,

  

Rev Dr Durrell Watkins

Senior Minister, Sunshine Cathedral

PS ~ Below are some powerful statement by other faith leaders:

Rev Dr Nancy Wilson, Presiding Elder & Moderator of Metropolitan Community Churches: 

"The high court of the United States put all of our freedoms at risk today. Conservatives will now seek to deny a range of civil liberties and religion will be an excuse to discriminate."

A statement from The Religious Institute, led by Unitarian Universalist minister Rev Debra Haffner:

"The Religious Institute decries today's U.S. Supreme Court decision undermining true religious freedom--the right of individuals to make their own moral choices."

Unitarian Universalist president, Rev Peter Morales:

"I am deeply concerned by the growing rights granted to corporations by this decision and others of this Court and our Congress. I am also deeply concerned by the growing use of the religious freedom argument as a tool of discrimination and oppression."

Rev Harry Knox of The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice:

"The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice is dismayed by the Supreme Court's decision...which perverts our nation's historic understanding of religious liberty. As a coalition of denominations and religious organizations, RCRC is gravely concerned about the Court's notion that a for-profit corporation is able to exercise religion."

Dr Serene Jones, president of Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York:

"As a Christian, I believe that God creates human beings individually, and that the mark of our individual blessedness before God is our souls. It is this soul that allows us to be bearers of rights and obligations and rational agents capable of holding religious beliefs. Hobby Lobby would have us believe that corporations, too, have souls. This is not the case. I am horrified by the thought that the owners of Hobby Lobby as Christians think their corporation has a soul, and I'm even more appalled that the Supreme Court agrees."

Bishop Gene Robinson (The Episcopal Church):
"The Jesus I follow always stood with the poor and powerless - and trust me, this struggle is about power. Whether the issue touches women or gays and lesbians, our religion should be about more love, not less; more dignity, not less."

Big picture

This election isn't just about the economy. The economy was in free-fall before Nov. 2008 and yes, it is now better. GM lives. Jobs have been created. Taxes on the middle class have been lowered, and attempts to make the super-rich pay their share are underway. Decreasing taxes on the wealthy while spending huge sums for an unjust war used up a surplus and destroyed a balanced budget...but those were 2001-2009 choices, not 2009-2013. So, things are b

etter, but in addition to the economy, gay rights have been promoted, health care has been made more accessible, the person who actually did orchestrate the 9/11 attacks is history, a third of the Supreme Court members are women...more than just the economy is better. Everyone must vote his/her own conscience, but please do vote and please think about more than the economy, and remember, the economy really has improved too.

Health Care a Personal Issue for Some of Us

My grandfather was a small business owner. He was a self-taught machinist without a high school education. He survived the depression (as an orphan) and went on to teach himself a trade, start his own business, build his own house (before the days of onerous permits), and raise a family.

My grandfather, though generous, was also fiscally conservative. He saved and was ready to retire with a significant nest egg (mostly invested in Certificates of Deposit). He retired at 62 with his savings and Social Security as his only income. My grandmother, a life-long home-maker, drew a significantly smaller Social Security pension.

At 65, my grandfather would have received Medicare. But you see, for some reason, he had never bothered to purchase health insurance. And since he didn't have it while he was working, he didn't think he'd need it in retirement, especially since Medicare was just three short years away.

Sadly, cancer did not wait on medicare. Medical bills depleted most of my grandparents' savings. In fact, my grandmother was still paying for my grandfather's illness years after his death. When she turned 65, my grandmother received Medicare benifits and eventually took out an AARP supplemental policy. But neither of her insurance plans at that time covered prescription medications. She spent the rest of her life spending most of her fixed income on her own medical care. The lack of insurance, or insurance that covered the real cost of health management left hard-working, saving, thrify people spending their retirement years far less comfortably than they had planned for, hoped, and deserved.

My other grandmother was a teacher. She did not have the added income of a spouse in her retirement years. She had social security and teacher retirement pensions and an insurance policy. That insurance policy proved invaluable as Alzheimers disease struck and left her needing a great deal of care. Where would she have been without it? And if she had chosen a different profession, she might not have had insurance. Then what?

My father had a union job and therefore had good benefits. Again, this was lucky for him as he was forced to retire slightly early because of health challenges that probably resulted from a lifetime of factory work. What if he had worked for a non-union company? What if he had not been lucky enough to have health insurance? How would he have paid for his oxygen, his medications, his quadruple bypass surgery, his year of chemotherapy?

I am in a profession that provides HMO coverage for me. I'm glad. Otherwise, the thousand dollars a month of HIV medications I take to remain healthy would be financially devastating to me. And without the medications...well, we know the story of AIDS.

You see, I know from personal experience and family history that health insurance is not a luxury...it is a necessity. Not every job provides it. Not every individual can afford it. And yet, at some point, almost every individual will need it. Physical health and financial survival may depend on it.

That's what the national health care debate means to me. I don't care if people think its socialist (it is no more socialist than Medicare, Social Security, VA benefits, civil service benefits, guaranteed student loans, etc.). I personally don't have a problem with socialism. In fact, I am a great admirer of the social democracies of Western Europe and Canada. I am aware of the Christian Socialist movement of the late nineteenth/early 20th century (championed at the time by such evangelicals as Francis Bellamy, the Baptist who wrote the US Pledge of Allegiance!). But regardless of what it is called, health care is a human right, a practical necessity, and human compassion should make it a priority for an advanced civilization (especially one that imagines itself to have the moral authority to call itself a world leader).

If you have insurance, think of how lucky that makes you. Think of how horrible it might be if you didn't. Think of all the people who don't. Our wealthy nation can provide this necessity for everyone who can't afford it otherwise. Shouldn't that settle the matter once and for all?

Government IS Involved in Healthcare

Guess what? The US government is already involved in health care. The poorest families with children get medicaide. The elderly get medicare. The military has its own hospitals. Veterans get VA benefits. Why not provide care for the rest of Americans who are uninsured? The people who are so angrily opposing universal health care either have it themselves and don't care that others who need it can't afford it or otherwise can't get it, or they have allowed themselves to be frightened by untruths and vitriolic rhetoric. The government already insures many Americans...it's time to make sure EVERY American has access to quality health-care. It is not only the moral thing, but as a Christian minister I also believe it is what Jesus would endorse. Jesus spent a great deal of time in his ministry caring for those who were ill. Followers of Jesus should likewise be concerned for the well-being of all people. This isn't about partisan politics; this is about doing what is best for every person in this country. And as the government already provides coverage for many, let's go the rest of the way and make sure there is coverage for all.