A Catholic Cardinal's Lesson on Chutzpah

Here's a definition of chutzpah: during an interview on Meet The Press, New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan claimed the Catholic Church has been“outmarketed” on marriage equality and the Church has been “caricatured as being anti-gay.” Cardinal Dolan, as he often does, tries to have the Church portrayed as “the martyr,” attacked by the evil forces of Hollywood, politicians and “some opinion-molders.” Dolan claims, “We’re pro-marriage, we’re pro-traditional marriage, we’re not anti-anybody.”

Dolan's attempt at spin is easily shot down with examples of anti-gay animus too numerous to mention in one blog post, though I will list a few.

Let's start with 1986 and the paternal-sounding “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.” It written by Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who 19 years later became Pope Benedict XVI. That document reaffirmed another from 1975 that called homosexual acts “intrinsically disorderd.” The 1986 Letter did not stop at sexual acts in and of themselves. “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.” Ratzinger further declared that when “they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within them a disorderd sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.” (emphases mine)

Ratzinger and the Church equation of LGBT people as being objectively disordered is an assertion as ancient and not based in fact as the Church's once-held belief that the sun revolved around the earth. His belief, and thus the Church's, is that the only purpose of marriage is procreation. The Ratzinger proclamation shockingly declared, “when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any inconceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.”

In other words, LGBT people who seek to achieve any form of dignity, human rights or equality should not be surprised by violence toward them because they bring it on themselves. Such an assertion is despicable and encourages attacks, including physical ones, against LGBT people.

By opposing marriage equality, the Catholic Church seeks to impose its narrow definition of such unions on all human beings, regardless of one's belief or no belief at all. Yet, not all religions share that narrow definition of marriage. In the United States and many other countries, marriage is a civil institution, a legal contract providing protections for and placing responsibilities on two people committing to one another with absolutely no requirement or promise of bearing children.

The hierarchy of the Catholic Church has spent millions of dollars and exerted significant pressure on political bodies in state capitals, Washington, DC and the United Nations to halt any advance in LGBT rights, believing any LGBT right relates back to marriage.

Five years ago, the Vatican vehemently opposed a UN resolution endorsing a universal declaration to decriminalize homosexuality. The Church, through its UN envoy, claimed discrimination – not against LGBT people, but toward the Church and countries that do not allow same-sex marriage. The Vatican was particularly opposed to any mention of “gender identity.” To the Catholic Church, punishment for being gay in 76 countries, five of which include the death penalty, is preferable to any attempt to decriminalize homosexuality because such decriminalization could be used to push for marriage equality and threatens "religious freedom," which has become code for the ability to discriminate on the basis of personal religious belief. The UN eventually adopted its first resolution in support of LGBT rights in 2011, but without Vatican support.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is opposed to any immigration reform that includes legally-married gay couples. For the Catholic Church, the inhumanity of keeping a binational gay or lesbian couple separated or living outside the United States is morally acceptable.

Millions have been spent by the Catholic Church and Catholic organizations like the Knights of Columbus in attempts to halt civil legislation in every state that has had a ballot measure on marriage equality. In 2009, the Diocese of Portland, Maine took up a second collection that raised $80,000 in what was then a successful attempt to overturn the state's marriage equality law. In 2012, another collection was taken up by parishes and congregations across Maine – on Father's Day no less – to oppose a ballot measure legalizing same-sex marriage. That attempt failed and Maine was one of three states to approve marriage equality last year.

Providence Bishop Thomas Tobin forbade Catholic family and friends from attending any same-sex marriage ceremony. “Catholics should examine their consciences very carefully before deciding whether or not to endorse same-sex relationships or attend same-sex ceremonies, realizing that to do so might harm their relationship with God and cause significant scandal to others.” In other words, going to your son's or daughter's or classmate's wedding will bring you a step closer to hell.

Minneapolis Archbishop John Nienstedt mailed 400,000 anti-gay DVDs to Minnesota Catholics in 2010 and went so far as to tell a mother that she had to reject her gay son or risk going to hell. “I urge you to reconsider the position that you expressed in your letter. Your eternal salvation may well depend upon a conversation (sic) of heart on this topic.”

Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, IL, conducted an exorcism at his cathedral, not far from the state capitol, “in reparation” for the legislature passing a marriage equality law. He also went the eternal fire and damnation route, telling a reporter, “If you're voting for someone because you have the intention of trying to promote something that is gravely sinful then you are putting your salvation in jeopardy.”

Dolan's list of anti-gay actions and rhetoric could fill a book. He was co-host of an anti-gay, anti-same-sex-marriage forum in my city of Poughkeepsie in September 2011, shortly New York State's marriage equality law took effect. This past September, Dolan emceed a conference at Columbia University on The Manhattan Declaration, which calls upon “people of faith” to oppose all laws that offer marriage equality, likening same-sex marriage to “polyamorous partnerships, polygamous households, even adult brothers, sisters, or brothers and sisters living in incestuous relationships.” (pages 4-7 of link)

Dolan refused to speak up during last summer's LGBT bashings in his city and the death of Mark Carson, murdered solely because he was gay. Rather, as violence was being perpetrated against gay residents, Dolan, in his role as president of USCCB, was instrumental is providing anti-gay-marriage prayers and bulletin inserts to every Catholic parish in the country in advance of the U.S. Supreme Court rulings on the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8.

There are many examples of Catholic and non-Catholic employees of parochial schools and programs who were fired, providing them with no income or health benefits, solely because they are gay, or supported or sought the protection of civil marriage for their long-term, loving relationships. Some of these dismissals followed cowardly acts of unsigned complaints, including one that led to the firing of a beloved teacher whose mother's obituary listed her daughter's partner.

I have said it before, but it bears repeating. Cardinal's Dolan's claim of religious liberty does not trump an LGBT individual's or family's claim to civil rights and common human decency, including the protections offered by civil marriage. To say you are against my marriage and the protections it offers, solely on the basis of my sexual orientation, IS anti-gay, despite any spin by the Cardinal that denies it. Fortunately, the people in the pews ignore his protestations, as a majority of Catholics support marriage equality.

One last thing...While Pope Francis told his hierarchy a few months ago to stop obsessing on gays, abortion and contraception, last week he came out with his “Apostolic Exhortation” “Evangelii Gaudium.” While much of the media focus has been on Francis' call for greater social and economic equality, the document also reiterated the Church's stance that marriage's chief purpose is procreation. Those hoping for change in this area are in for a tremendous disappointment. The fight for LGBT rights must continue, without – and often against – the leadership of the Catholic Church. Dolan's assertion that the battle is not over, comparing the ongoing fight against the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision, shows that the Cardinal and others in the Catholic hierarchy are in this for the long haul. So are we, the people on the right side of history.

SCOTUS Provides Great End to Pride Month, but Equality Remains on the Agenda

My husband Pete and I joined with many LGBT folks and straight allies in celebrating the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling declaring Section 3 of the inappropriately-named Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. We were also happy SCOTUS deferred to a lower court ruling on Prop 8 based on the standing of those who challenged Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision.

Pete and I will now be able to file all of our income tax forms together, no longer lying on our federal return by saying we are single. We’re covered by inheritance rights heterosexual couples have always enjoyed. If something happens to me, Pete will get my Social Security benefits. If I lose my job, Pete will be covered under whatever meager health benefits we get from COBRA. And we can exchange money between various checking and savings accounts without worrying about exceeding the “gift” amount of $13,000 a year. While we were both born in the U.S., it’s also heartening to see bi-national couples finally able to get a green card for the non-American spouse. Those and more than 1,100 other federal rights have been extended to us and all legally married gay and lesbian couples, catching up to the equal rights we enjoy under New York State law.

Aye, there’s the rub. We’re fine as long as we remain in New York. We can’t consider employment in Florida or a home in North Carolina. If we visit my brother in Texas and one of us were to end up in a hospital, the other half of our legally-sanctioned marriage has no right to determine treatment and can be barred from visiting the injured party. That’s because Section 2 of DOMA remains and we are only legally married if we remain contained in the pen of 13 states that recognize the validity of our union. That section of DOMA was not part of the Windsor case on which the Court made its ruling.

There are still 37 states where we are not equal. There are 29 states where we can be fired for even the suspicion of being gay – though I’m sure our wedding rings would give us away. That’s one state less that the two-thirds needed to pass a constitutional amendment that would effectively strip us of our marriage. So, Rep. Tim Huelskamp’s threat to introduce a “Federal Marriage Amendment” is nothing more than street theater, since it will never pass. I found it rather funny that his speech to propose the amendment, delivered in front of the Supreme Court building, was drowned out by the successful litigants of the Prop 8 case and their attorneys as the descended the steps behind him. God proves yet again S/He has a sense of justice.

Yet, it wasn’t a week of all wins in the fight for equality. The previous day, by the same 5-4 vote that awarded some semblance of equality to gay and lesbian couples, SCOTUS gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965. States that attempted to put restrictions on voting, only to have them thrown out in court, rejoiced. Texas’ Attorney General said he would move quickly to institute a Voter ID law. Other states have limited voter registration periods, early balloting opportunities, or Election Day voting hours. Rather than encouraging a right that many Americans hold sacred and bemoan low turnout, some states in the north and south are doing their best to suppress access to the that right. I feel the need to point out these are being done in states with Republicans in power.

Growing up as a Caucasian family in a predominantly African-American neighborhood, we learned a lesson on race at a very early age. My father told me when I was five or six that if my friend Kenny and I got “boo-boos,” we’d both bleed the same color blood. I never forgot that. I also never heard either of my parents utter a discriminatory word, phrase or epithet. My mom and I attended the 15^th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s March on Washington in 1978, going to D.C. with our neighbors; we were the only Caucasians on the bus. I went to public schools and a community college where my classmates ranged in age from 17 to 72 and there was a mixture of races, ethnicities and religions (or no religion at all). It’s why I feel comfortable in any group, except in those that espouse hatred in any form. Sadly, there are many such groups still around. Some of them even have representation in Congress. While I agree with one point made by the SCOTUS majority – areas under federal watch need to be expanded – I don’t expect Congress, the House in particular, to be up to the challenge.

As we end Pride Month, we still should celebrate the progress that has been made, while committing ourselves to the fight for equality and winning the struggles that remain.

One last thing…there are several websites that help LGBT couples navigate the confusing road to semi-equality. Lambda Legal has a good round-up. It’s time for Pete and me to have a will, health-care proxy and all of the other legal paperwork that protects us, even though there is a question as to whether other states would honor it.

Pope and Change

Not many people had the runner-up of the 2005 conclave, Cardinal Jose Mario Bggoglio, archbishop of Buenos Aires, Argentina, on their short list of papabile, the candidates most likely to be selected pope. Yet, when the 76-year-old stepped onto the balcony of St. Peter's Basilica to greet the 200,000 people who had gathered in the square below, it was clear that change was in the air.

Gone was the sartorial splendor of previous popes, with Bergoglio wearing just a white cassock, though still composed of watered silk. His pectoral cross was a simple design of wood, not the traditional gold. He only donned the heavily embroidered stole when it was time to offer his first blessing, then removed it shortly thereafter. But before he blessed the people, he asked for their blessing first, bowing his head in prayerful humility. He spoke in excellent Italian, off-the-cuff, colloquially, closing with a  wish for “a good evening and a good sleep.”

I've already written about the importance of the selection of the name Francis, in honor of the man called to “rebuild the Church, which is in ruins.” Bergoglio is a Jesuit from the New World,, a Spanish-speaking priest of Italian descent fluent in six languages. While most of the changes we have seen reflect a difference in style, notably from his immediate predecessor, Benedict XVI, they may portend upcoming changes in substance, to a point.

One thing I noticed on that balcony on Wednesday evening, Rome time, was a change in attitude toward the papal master of ceremonies, Msgr. Guido Marini, who favored lace and ancient vestments and liturgies in Latin, and in whom he found a kindred spirit in Benedict. Expect him to be replaced soon. That will send a message to those trying to get the Church to return to the days of priest with his back to the people, a maniple on their left arm, and the people sitting quietly in the pews fingering rosaries and having minimal participation in the liturgy.

Expect changes in Church governance, in the Roman Curia, the Cabinet-like departments that impact the day-to-day and long-term operations of the Church. Francis made a strong statement against Curial careerism shortly before the conclave began. It had the effect of being his pre-election speech, as most commentators have said the cardinals were looking for someone to come in to clean house.

If Francis wants to make a bold statement about women in the Church, he would do well to replace to place women in visible leadership positions in the Curia. Look for a change in the Secretary of State, the Vatican's prime minister, since there is no love lost for the current office holder, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, a Salesian and former archbishop of Bologna. He exposed Benedict to many missteps, especially early in his papacy, and protected the careerists in the Curia. The post will probably stay with an Italian, but perhaps go to someone from the south.

Look for Francis to lay down the law on the priesthood, which has been scandalized by sexual and financial scandals. Seminaries need to produce priests who have a greater calling to assist with social issues, have a preferential option for the poor, and see themselves as servants, not just enforcers of doctrine and who enjoy the power that comes from telling people how to live their lives. I've seen and heard of too many examples of priests ordained in the past two decades and seminarians currently in training who do not exhibit Christ-like qualities and can often be heavy-handed, intolerant and condescending to the laity; who enjoy being too close to money and power; who yearn for a return to the 1940s liturgies at the expense of all other celebrations; who force out good, devout, practicing Catholics who are gay, divorced, or poor and in need of social services or government assistance.

Clericalism, at its worst, empowered priests and the hierarchy to handle the scandals of recent years as they did, protecting the institution while hurting the people who truly make up the Church. If Francis wants to at least attempt to stanch the flow of people from emptying churches, he will redirect the priesthood from fraternity to collegiality that welcomes dialogue, participation, and even veto power over administrative matters by the laity.

Transparency does not exist in many Church operations, but from the local parish to the Vatican, the Church would do well to pay heed to the admonition of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis that “sunlight is the best disinfectant.” If changes are not made, expect even further reductions in donations from the faithful. Also expect condemnation from international banking regulators who have already put the Holy See on notice that it is close to being blacklisted for failure to ensure it is not involved in money laundering and funding terrorists. One way the Vatican was hit financially because of its lack of transparency: the Vatican Museums, a major source of income for the city-state, could not accept credit card transactions for six weeks.

While I would hope for changes in acceptance of LGBT individuals and families, I do not expect any change in that direction, especially judging by Bergoglio's strongly anti-gay comments in the battle for marriage equality in Argentina, a battle he lost. A strong president, Christina Fernandez de Kirchner, stood up to Bergoglio in this human rights debate, and the overwhelmingly Catholic country became the tenth nation to approve marriage and rights to adoption by same-sex couples. Yet, some media reports hint that Francis may, based on past statements, soften his tone on some form of relationship recognition for same-sex couples.  After all, he has now seen that going on three-years after marriage equality became the law of the land in Argentina, the country has not fallen apart, nor has equality threatened the stability of opposite-sex marriages. While any step in this direction would be appreciated, I do not hold out much hope. I would enjoy being proven wrong.

Pope John XXIII had a brief pontificate but changed the direction of the Catholic Church by calling the Second Vatican Council. Pope John Paul I sent signals of dramatic reform until he died just 33 days after being elected pope. However long Francis sits on the Chair of Peter, he has the opportunity to steer the Church in a new direction. He needs the strength of character and the force of personality and example.  He needs to put reform-minded people, not just men and not just clerics, in true positions of power to enforce change. And I hope he looks at the world of 2013 and realizes that changes in families lead to a softening of tone and greater acceptance of all God's children in any situation or stage of life.

One last thing...Giving credit where credit is due, I must thank Bryan Terry for giving me the title to this post. It's from a tweet he wrote on March 13, the date Francis was elected.

An Unholy, Weak Response to Homeless LGBT Youth

It’s been three months since I updated my blog and I thought Easter would be a good time to resurrect it (no pun intended).  I debated writing a post about my new job, but will hold off on that for now because of events that developed over the past week, one of the holiest periods on the Judeo-Christian calendar.  Sit back; this is a long, passionate, personal post.

During “Holy Week,” Catholics and other Christians reflect upon the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus.  It is a time to seek forgiveness of one’s sins, to commit to be more Christ-like, and to celebrate the redemption of women and men through the selfless act of one Man offering up His life for the sins of the world.

However, this sacred time was marred this year by a response the previous week by New York Archbishop Cardinal Timothy Dolan, whose cold, unfeeling and “victimhood” response to a request by Carl Siciliano, the executive director of New York’s Ali Forney Center, which serves homeless lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender youth, many of whom are forced out of their family’s lives and dwellings solely for being lgbt.  Many of these families consider themselves “Christian” and cite biblical admonitions against homosexuality while throwing their sons and daughters out, choosing to ignore the loving Christ who fed the hungry, gave drink to the thirsty, clothed the naked, visited the sick, gave shelter to the homeless, and offered consolation to the imprisoned and afflicted.

Dolan’s response led a very dear friend, 24-year-old Joseph Amodeo, to resign from the junior executive board of Catholic Charities.  He blogged about it on the Huffington Post, which led to calls from Associated Press, the New York Times, the WashingtonPost, and other media outlets.  For someone so young and so faithful, Joseph has made a tremendous impact in advancing the understanding of lgbt issues and pointing out the hypocrisy of Catholic leadership, which, thankfully, does not mirror the majority of followers in the pews.

This was not the only missed opportunity for the Church to remove the plank from its own eye before pointing out the speck in someone else’s.  A New York Times article detailed how the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD), under pressure from right-wing Catholics, is ending funding for organizations that serve the poor and marginalized, including immigrants, solely for “guilt by association.”  The issue? Some of these organizations are affiliated with umbrella groups that support equal rights for lgbt Americans, among other issues.  The CCHD said they needed to "more explicitly express the ‘positions, activities and relationships’ grantees are prohibited from taking part in, such as ‘advocacy of abortion, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, racism, as well as use of the death penalty, punitive measures toward immigrants.’ ”  It is ironic that through its defunding, the Church itself is perpetrating “punitive measures toward immigrants.” And somehow, I doubt these same right-wing Catholics are as concerned about enforcing Church teaching on the death penalty and immigration.

I withdrew from active participation in the Catholic Church after Pete and I got married on July 24, 2011, doing so because I did not want to put the pastor of my parish in a position of turning me away should another priest or parishioner object to me being a Eucharistic Minister, lector, or even an usher.  It would be OK for me to sit quietly in church and continue to drop my generous donations in the basket each week, but in all other ways, I was unwelcome and unwanted by the Church to which I devoted my life for 53 years.  Donations that would have gone to the Church this year will, instead, go to the Ali Forney Center and The Trevor Project, the latter provides intervention and support to lgbt youth considering suicide.

Sadly, the Church of the 1960s and 1970s that marched in the streets for the rights of minorities, the poor, the marginalized, has given way to a Church that is consumed with others' sexual behavior, nearly exclusively homosexuality.  And the seminary system, especially in New York, reinforces the view of priesthood as “do as I say” (though, so often not as I do), a legalistic, pharisaic power-trip inconsistent with the compassion of Jesus, the True Pastor and Good Shepherd.  If the Catholic magisterium truly wants a smaller, purer Church, it is getting its wish.

Cardinal Dolan loves to play the victim, complaining about government interference in religion.  As I have said before, the Church can’t have it both ways.  It should not interfere in government, particularly when it comes to civil marriage offering dignity, recognition and protection to gay and lesbian couples.   

One last thing…Even though I am no longer welcome in the Catholic Church, I am grateful to clergy and laypeople from other denominations – Jewish and Christian – who have reached out to Pete and me to offer us a new spiritual home.  While we are so touched by their inclusion and thoughtfulness, we have decided to remain outside of any organized religion and will continue to live our lives is a way that truly answers the question, “What Would Jesus Do?”

Addendum (April 9, 2012). My friend Melissa Steinbach read this post Sunday and gave me a Hudson Valley perspective: "People have no idea of the magnitude of this problem. I work as a case manager with homeless youth ages 16-21 in a transitional living program in Poughkeepsie. The statistics are astounding and some suggest that around 40% or more of homeless youth are LGBTQ. It is unbelievably sad that someone would throw away their own flesh and blood because of his or her sexual orientation. I love seeing articles and blogs like this because the word needs to get out and programs like ours need funding so all homeless youth have supportive environments regardless of their sexual orientation!"

Melissa's program is River Haven's Transitional Living Community (TLC).  It is a part of a great organization called Hudson River Housing and yes, it also deserves our financial support.

Glancing Back but Looking Forward

Many people reflect on the year that just passed and say they're glad it's over.  As I glance back at 2011, I can't do that.  It was a very good year.  That's not to say it was perfect, but there is much for which to be thankful.  It's also my belief in positive thinking.  I tell students that, even in bad times, if you believe in yourself and exude confidence (minus arrogance), success will follow you.  That had to be reinforced with one of my former students who is still not working, seven months after graduating.  She was obviously despondent, but I told her that can't be reflected in who she portrays herself to be.

If you internalize defeatism, it will be read on your face and ooze from your pores.  I'm not a New Age type of guy, but I honestly believe in a person's aura, the vibes and sometimes even a color that surrounds a person.  It's not a perfect system, but I'm pretty good at "reading" someone, as are HR people or others who interview prospective candidates for jobs.

In 1987, when I came back from two years of study abroad in Rome, it was very difficult to find a job.  A position similar to the one I'm about to leave was open at Marist. I was told by the College's HR department I wasn't even qualified for an interview.  After months of searching, I accepted a college PR job in Presque Isle, Maine, not my ideal location because my family and friends were in Poughkeepsie, but I needed a job.  Two weeks before I was supposed to start, I saw a friend, John Mack, then president of Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, who gave me a job at the utility -- in my home city and for more money than I would have earned in Maine.  After constantly being told, "NO!" I finally had two who said, "YES!"  It's difficult to remain positive in the face of rejection, but no one wants to hire a person with a negative attitude.  Exude confidence with a dose of humility.  You will succeed.

For Pete and me, 2011 was a year we will never forget.  June 24, we watched, emotionally, as the New York State Senate passed a Marriage Equality bill 33-29, with our Senator, Steve Saland, casting the deciding yes vote.  The State Assembly had passed the bill earlier and staunch advocate Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the bill into law immediately.  We witnessed one of the most historic civil rights landmarks of our lives.  We "proposed" to each other that night, announced it on twitter, and were heartened by the response from friends and those we know only through social media.  We became the first same-sex couple in Dutchess County to get married the day the law went into effect -- Sunday, July 24.  We will mark our "first anniversary" in 2012, but our 32nd as a couple on October 25.

There were several health issues for Pete's mom, necessitating visits to the hospital and nursing homes for rehab throughout the year.  Yet, today, Marj is home with us, faring as well as can be expected, and will celebrate her 95th birthday, God willing, in March.  My mom continues her incredible life journey at age 92, and with the exception of really bad knees, is in wonderful health.

I had knee surgery for a torn meniscus in mid-December, but thanks to a tremendous doctor, William Thompson, I'm mobile, pretty much pain-free, and looking forward to starting my new job very soon.

Ah yes, the new job.  I wasn't looking to make a change, but this position fell into my lap, thanks to a friend of 34 years (we worked together as radio reporters), whose two sons were my students and studied abroad with me in Italy and Israel.  Two of my friend's direct reports are also my former students, who remain very close to me.  It was an offer I couldn't refuse and answered a question about what phase my career would take as I approach my 54th birthday next month.  I am grateful for this new opportunity and for friends who made it happen.

I look back at my 17 years at Marist with much affection and a sense of accomplishment.  However, the job was more than scoring media placements in regional and national newspapers and on radio and TV, or participating in some history-making events.  Rather, it's the relationships developed with students and coworkers that were the highlight of my years at the college.  I count a number of former students among my closest friends.  Two of them became adopted sons and were the witnesses for our wedding.  A third has recently entered that same category.  I love them and an immensely proud of them, especially because they seize and excel at so many opportunities offered to them through internships and jobs, intellectual and athletic pursuits, and more than anything else, they are honorable, respectful and loving.  What more could a dad ask for?

So, I'm grateful for 2011 and look forward to 2012.  Here's to a New Year filled with health, happiness, peace and prosperity for all!

One last thing...thank you for the warm best wishes as I start the latest chapter of my life.  More than 1,000 people read the blog post announcing the new job.  For many bloggers, that's just a blip, but for me, it was an honor.

Getting Married: A Tale of Two Cities and One Village

At 1:25 p.m. on Sunday, July 24, 2011, my partner of nearly 31 years and I got married.  It turned into a major production, not for the ceremony itself, but because of what Pete and I went through to get married on the first day the Marriage Equality law took effect in New York State.

We didn't want a big ceremony, which we thought to be anticlimactic after three decades together.  We also wanted to commemorate the day that equality became the law of our state (but, unfortunately, not yet of our nation).  To be married that day entailed a trip to Kingston, then back to Poughkeepsie, then back north to Red Hook. Kingston was one of the municipalities in Ulster County (along with Plattekill, Shandaken and Woodstock) that opened its clerk's office on Sunday to issue licenses to same-sex couples, many of whom, like us, have been together for many years.  The City of Poughkeepsie, where I was born and raised and in which Pete and I live, chose to remain closed, a political statement for sure.  The 32-year old mayor of Poughkeepsie was quoted in our local paper as saying that just because same-sex marriages are now lawful, does not mean he has to officiate at them.  BTW, 2011 is a local election year, including mayor.

Arlene Rion and her staff in the Kingston City Clerk's office were warm, welcoming and wonderful.  State Supreme Court Justice Christopher Cahill was on hand to issue waivers of the state's 24-hour waiting rule for marriages.  Not knowing that would be the case, Pete and I made prior arrangements to go before State Supreme Court Justice Christine Sproat in Poughkeepsie to issue that waiver, hence the drive south to the Dutchess County Courthouse.  Chris was also the duty judge for the Supreme Court that weekend and she told us we were the only couple seeking that waiver, which can only be granted by a justice of a "superior court" in New York State.  Waiver granted, we headed north to the Village of Red Hook, where Village and Town Justice Jonah Triebwasser had offered to officiate.  Jonah is also an adjunct professor at Marist College and an actor most known for playing President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (a true "local boy who made good") on stage and the History Channel.

We were joined by our two beloved "adopted sons," Luke and Stephen, who were the witnesses for our marriage, both having traveled great distances to be there, which meant the world to Pete and me.  Steve timed the ceremony at 27.5 seconds.  Pete and I already considered ourselves married, but we needed to go through the "I Dos" to make it legal.  Our friend, Al Nowak of On Location Studios, took photos.  After brunch at the Beekman Arms in Rhinebeck, it was off to Holy Cow, one of the best known ice cream shops in the Hudson Valley.  Pete and I joked decades ago that if we ever could get married, our wedding reception would be at Holy Cow.  If you've never been, you wouldn't understand.  Great soft-serve with prices from a generation ago, they make their profit by volume.

As it turned out, Pete and I were the first same-sex couple to be married in Dutchess County.  In some ways, nothing has changed, yet in other ways, the world has changed. Our relationship is now legally recognized.  We are offered the protections and accept the responsibilities offered to opposite-sex couples.  No one else's marriage was harmed by ours.  The world has not come to an end.  The support we have received from family and friends, including many of my colleagues and my current and former Marist students, has been overwhelming and deeply appreciated. 

Of course, tens of thousands of legally-married gay and lesbian couples will not be truly equal in the eyes of the law until the Defense of Marriage Act is repealed.  Until then, America will continue to be the land of separate and unequal.

We do have something many married couples don't have -- two anniversaries: October 25, which this year will mark 31 years together for us, and July 24, a day we will celebrate with all New Yorkers.

One last thing...for same-sex couples who do tie the knot, check out the series, "The Cost of Being Gay:  A look at the financial realities of same-sex partnerships," by Tara Siegel Bernard (@tarasbernard on twitter).  Even the comments section, a part of contemporary newspapers I find extremely crude and distasteful, is good because other experts share their knowledge of the joys and pains of being legally-recognized spouses by your state but not by your federal government.

Coming Out for Equality and Against Bigotry

Over the last couple of weeks, I have listened to leaders of the Catholic Church, my church, denigrate the dignity of gay and lesbian couples.  Their denunciations are couched in terms like, “love the sinner, hate the sin,” or the Church will lay claim to victimhood due to “attacks” that some of its leaders, clergy and lay, are called bigots and homophobes.

I originally was going to submit this post last month following a vitriolic unsigned editorial in all likelihood penned, or minimally, approved by Bishop Thomas Tobin of the Diocese of Providence, RI, which appeared in the diocesan newspaper Rhode Island Catholic, ironically, on Divine Mercy Sunday.  When it comes to gays and lesbians, divine mercy is an oxymoron to Tobin.  The stunningly anti-gay editorial uses the politically charged terms “the radical homosexual lobby,” “so-called ‘equality,’ ” “homosexual activists,” “activists’ (sic) judges," “traditional marriage,” and “passing a Defense of Marriage Bill.”

A week ago, I attended a panel discussion at the United Nations on “The Dignity of the Human Person” celebrating the beatification (one step from sainthood) of Pope John Paul II.  That evening, I tweeted, “Would love to ask if that includes #lgbt folk.”  By the end of the event, I got my answer: NO!  The last speaker, Douglas Farrow, professor of Christian Thought at Montreal’s McGill University, told the audience he had been asked by the event’s Vatican sponsors to focus on “marriage and attacks on the family.”  He started by saying, “Human dignity is rooted in marriage and the family.”  He went on to explain how that dignity cannot be granted to gays and lesbians living in committed relationships.  Farrow went so far as to twist the great UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, developed by one of my idols, Eleanor Roosevelt, by saying those rights do not extend to marriage equality for gays and lesbians for all of the “human history,” procreation,” etc. arguments we had heard ad infinitum.

Then, in this unholy trinity of attacks, I read a tweet last Friday by the excellent NY Daily News blogger Celeste Katz (@DNDailyPolitics) that New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan believes “Legalizing Gay Marriage Could Make "1984" Non-Fiction Reading, including the offensive canard that legalizing same-sex unions and providing the same protections granted to opposite-sex couples will lead to the slippery slope of being “morphed again to include multiple spouses or even family members.”  I will give Dolan credit for not including family pets and inanimate objects in those possible unions, something other so-called religious and political leaders have claimed.  Dolan’s comments led one of my twitter followers, Nick Fugitt (@nfugitt) to respond:  "Telling people who they can and can't marry is...NOT like 1984? #cuethecircusmusic."

All these attacks come as the New York State Legislature moves closer to a vote on marriage equality.  There is no doubt this human rights law will pass the State Assembly and would be signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo if the State Senate reverses its 2009 vote that saw the bill lose by 14 votes.  My own state senator, Steve Saland, promised me he would vote in favor, but when he saw no Republicans would vote “aye,” he caved and voted “no.”  Saland later told me he feared being primaried – despite the fact he had served in Albany, at that time, for 30 years.  He also told me it was the worst vote of his career and that someday the law would pass.  Senator, that someday could be in June 2011 if you become a “profile in courage” and vote yes for equality.  

I'm normally an optimist and I hope and pray that a marriage equality bill will become New York law, but earlier today, Republican state senators from Binghamton and Brooklyn joined notorious anti-gay Pentecostal minister and Democratic State Senator Ruben Diaz to introduce an incredibly mean-spirited bill to invalidate out-of-state same-sex marriages in an attempt to curry favor with the state’s Conservative Party, which threatened to withhold its endorsement from any GOP senator who votes for marriage equality.  I am also a realist and know there are not enough votes to repeal DOMA, the true barrier to full equality nationwide.

How can anyone say that my relationship of 30+ years with Pete is of no value?  How can any politician vote to deny legal recognition of a partnership that has lasted longer than a majority of heterosexual marriages?  How can a religious leader say we should not be afforded the human dignity allowed straight couples who were married for 55 hours (like Britney Spears) or Catholic presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, who believes so much in the sanctity of marriage that he has had three of them, the last two following adulterous affairs.

As I started writing this post last Saturday, Pete was lovingly caring for his 94-year-old mother, cleaning her then dressing her before driving her to New Jersey to get her hair cut by the woman who has been doing that job for 30 years.  Being a caregiver is a full-time job, yet that’s not all Pete does.  He also sells real estate following a layoff 16 months ago that ended a 32-year radio career.  It’s not easy and his modesty will not allow me to detail the difficulties he has performing all the tasks necessary for being a caregiver, but everyone who knows Pete confirms what I have long known – he is the warmest, most caring, deeply loving, selfless person anyone ever meets.  Meeting him was a gift from God.  Being partnered with him for this long, and for hopefully at least another 30+ years (God willing), has been a blessing.

I’m proud and honored to be an “adopted dad.”  Pete and I serve as mentors to young men and women in college and in careers.  We are actively involved in our community, pay our taxes, keep up our home, help our neighbors, and contribute what we can to a wide variety of nonprofits and causes.  I am heartened by the changing attitude of Americans of all ages, but particularly among those under 30, and religious leaders of many denominations, including those Christians who ask “What Would Jesus Do?” and respond by being welcoming and accepting of all. 

God forbid, if something were to happen to me tomorrow, Pete and our moms would lose the house we have lived in for the past 12 years, thanks to estate taxes that Pete would be forced to pay because there is no right to inheritance for lgbt couples.  He will not get my Social Security benefits, unlike my mother who received my father’s benefits after his death in 1999, nor would he get the measly $255 death benefit granted by Social Security.  While I am grateful that Marist College offers domestic partner benefits, I must pay several thousand dollars in state and federal taxes on the 85 percent contribution made by my employer, something that legally married couples do not have to do.  At least we were born in the U.S.  If one of us were a foreign national, we could face deportation.  There are more than 1,400 federal and New York State laws that protect married couples, protections denied to Pete and me and millions of other lgbt couples, because of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and the failure of the New York State Senate to offer equal protection under the law.

Is this what the Catholic Church and elected officials really want – forcing surviving family members, including two nonagenarians, out of their home?  Do they really want to put roadblocks in the way of affording healthcare?  Do they really want to split families?  Do they really enjoy inflicting pain and suffering?  Doesn’t sound very “Christian” to me.  Catholic leaders say their religious liberty is being infringed upon.  I have two answers to that.  First, the Catholic hierarchy is infringing upon the religious liberty of denominations like the Episcopal Diocese of New York, which supports marriage equality.  Second, the Catholic hierarchy’s religious liberty should not trump (pardon the use of that term/name) Pete’s civil liberties and mine for equal protection under the law. 

I know there is a lot of money to be made from homophobia and bigotry.  Those evils put cash and checks in collection plates, business reply envelopes from organizations like the National Organization for Marriage and the American Family Association, and candidates’ coffers. 

If there is a “Last Judgment,” I believe those who preach hate and stand in the way of equality for the lgbt community will be asked the question posed by Jesus to Saul on the road to Damascus at the time of his conversion: “Why are you persecuting me?” (Acts 9:4).  For “whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers (and sisters), that you do unto me,” (Matthew 25:40).

Pete and I hope that by the time of our 31^st anniversary in October we will have civil recognition of our relationship in the eyes of the state.  We already have that recognition in the eyes of God.

One last thing…I was saddened to see in my own parish bulletin last weekend two pages on “Why Marriage Should Not Be Redefined,” provided by the "Family Life" Office of the Archdiocese of New York.  It contained the same tired, disproven accusations about the collapse of human civilization because of “homosexuals” (a “tested” word that sounds much more ominous and “other” than saying “gays and lesbians”).  It also contains a “reassuring” paragraph telling the faithful that this is proper discrimination, or as the Archdiocese of New York phrased it using a double-negative, “It is not improper ‘discrimination’ to treat same-sex relationships differently from marriage…” This is the type of cultural relativism decried by the Church itself by no less than Pope Benedict XVI, but it is apparently justified by the Church against gays and lesbians.  The “Good News” is that New York is turning away from the discrimination promulgated by the Catholic Church.  Even though I am Catholic, I must remind Church leaders that Catholicism is a minority religion in the U.S.  In addition to the bold support from the Episcopal Diocese mentioned above, more than 700 religious leaders from around the state recently restated their support of marriage equality.  If the Church argues that a “minority” population of gays and lesbians should not be allowed to change the definition of marriage, the Church must remember that they, too, are in the minority and should not bar people of any faith, or no faith at all, from a civil marriage.

Thanks to my beloved adopted son Luke (@LShane262) for giving me the name for this entry and for his support and encouragement to post what he calls "a rant, but a necessary one."