THE SECOND COMING

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

  — William Butler Yeats (1865 - 1939), Irish poet.

Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three-Act Story : NPR

Morning Edition, June 16, 2008 · As gay couples in California head to the courthouse starting Monday to get legally married, there are signs of a coming storm. Two titanic legal principles are crashing on the steps of the church, synagogue and mosque: equal treatment for same-sex couples on the one hand, and the freedom to exercise religious beliefs on the other.

The collision that will play out over the next few years will be filled with pathos on both sides.

As many of my regular readers know, before I moved to Utah, I lived in San Francisco for many, many years, and Santa Cruz prior to that. Needless to say, having spent nearly 2 decades in Northern California, the issue of gay rights has had a lot of visibility in my life … so to me, the recent California Supreme Court decision overturning the state’s ban on same-sex marriage prompted thoughts of “It’s about freakin’ time!”

I’ve always felt that it was just plain wrong to deny gay couples involved in a committed long-term and loving relationship the same basic rights that a violent, abusive husband has simply by virtue that his wife hasn’t yet filed for divorce.

And seriously, how does Adam & Steve getting married have a negative impact on Adam & Eve’s marriage?

Wedding bells chime for California same-sex couples

Lesbian rights activists Del Martin, 87, and Phyllis Lyon, 84, were the first same-sex couple to receive a marriage license in San Francisco on Monday, with Mayor Gavin Newsom presiding over their wedding ceremony.

“This is an extraordinary moment in history,” Newsom told a cheering, standing-room-only crowd at City Hall. “I think today, marriage as an institution has been strengthened.”

But this morning, I listened to the above linked (and excerpted) story on NPR’s Morning Edition … and it got me thinking about some of the other involved issues tied to gay marriage … and religious freedom.

In the story, a lesbian couple wished to have their (New Jersey) civil union ceremony performed in a Pavilion owned by a Methodist retreat center, formally known as the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association. The Methodist group gave them permission to have their ceremony anywhere on the property except those areas used for religious purposes by the group.

The couple filed an anti-discrimination suit. The NPR story continues:

The Methodist organization responded that it was their property, and the First Amendment protects their right to practice their faith without government intrusion. But Lustberg countered that the pavilion is open to everyone — and therefore the group could no more refuse to accommodate the lesbians than a restaurant owner could refuse to serve a black man. That argument carried the day. The state revoked the organization’s tax exemption for the pavilion area. Hoffman figures they will lose $20,000.

Now, with the help of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a Christian legal firm, Hoffman is appealing the case to state court. He says religious freedom itself is in jeopardy.

“And that potentially affects every religious organization in America, not just Christian organizations, but every religious organization. And I get calls from Jewish rabbis who are equally concerned — people from across the spectrum who think it’s a battle worth fighting. And we agree,” Hoffman says.

Now, I am hardly the most religious person in the world, but I do believe that any person should be able to practice the religion of their choice … and in this particular case, I happen to agree with Reverend Hoffman; especially since the group didn’t tell the couple they couldn’t have their ceremony on the property at all, just not within structures used for religious purposes by the group.

A case like this, carried to its extreme, could mean that the the Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (and everyone else) could be forced to allow gay couples to hold their civil ceremonies (and/or marriages, in those states which currently or will ultimately allow them) on, and within Church property.

While part of me finds the idea of the Mormons being forced to allow gay weddings amusing, not only on Temple Square but within the Temple itself, a far bigger part of me feels that the members of a church should be allowed to worship as they please, and that churches should be able to disallow activity on their property that goes against their core beliefs.

I don’t equate a church refusing to allow a gay couple to “marry” on church property because it’s against their religious beliefs, with a restaurant owner refusing to serve a person simply based on the color of their skin … primarily because owning a business isn’t protected as free speech or freedom of religion, as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Elsewhere in the overall piece is a story about a wedding photographer who was sued for discrimination because his business indicated that they would not photograph same-sex marriages because it goes against the owners’ religious beliefs.

This is a little closer to the restaurant analogy … but it’s still an iffy situation.

I’m afraid that these kinds of legal battles may lead to a backlash against the gay and lesbian community; that groups like the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association will close up their property to everyone, and only allow it to be used for religious purposes. I’m afraid that more states; less enlightened states, will put amendments banning gay marriage into their constitutions.

I’m afraid that society, while making making some huge steps forward right now, will get pushed back even further …

What are your thoughts, dear readers?

Last week I posted an entry supporting a boycott of the opening ceremony at the Olympic Games. Thor Hushovd listened. Okay, maybe not to me, but the idea is taking hold amongst athletes.

VeloNews | Hushovd considers opening ceremony boycott

Crédit Agricole’s ace sprinter Thor Hushovd says he is prepared to boycott the opening ceremony to the Beijing Olympics in August to protest Chinese repression in Tibet.

“We sports people do not have any particular responsibility to take a stance over what is happening in China,” he told Norway’s Faedrelandsvennen newspaper.

“But all the same we can have some influence by snubbing the opening ceremony in Beijing. That would be a valid form of protest and I am prepared to do it,” Hushovd said. “However, from there to boycotting the Games entirely is a huge step.”

Now, in my world, this is a huge thing … but in the grand scheme, cycling is not a major sport, at least not in the United States; as evidenced by the slim amount of television coverage it gets from NBC; and as Hushovd is a Norwegian, it’s likely to make little impact. But if Hushovd’s decision can start affecting other cyclists from other nations, and if those nations’ cyclists can inspire their compatriots participating in other sports, then maybe, just maybe the impact can be felt.

We need more athletes to step up and speak. In the United States, it will take a vocal stand by the stars of Swimming, Track & Field, and Gymnastics. Unfortunately, I don’t know who they are … is Amanda Beard still swimming?

We all know that not only is this an election year, but it’s an Olympic year, with the 2008 Olympic Games being held in Beijing this upcoming August.

With the recent crackdown by the Chinese government in Tibet, along with their ongoing support of the Sudanese government (which is contributing to the problems in Darfur), there have been a number of calls for an Olympic boycott.

I, for one, don’t think a full-scale boycott is the way. Then I ran across this article:

Calls Mount for Olympic Ceremony Boycott

PARIS (AP) - Moves to punish China over its handling of violence in Tibet gained momentum Tuesday, with a novel suggestion for a mini-boycott of the Beijing Olympics by VIPs at the opening ceremony.

Such a protest by world leaders would be a huge slap in the face for China’s Communist leadership.

Can you imagine the embarrassment felt if all the various world leaders opted not to attend the opening ceremonies, as they are currently expected to do? Can you imagine the further embarrassment felt if the world’s athletes opted not to attend as well?

Elsewhere in the article, it states:

Such an opening ceremony boycott presumably would not include the athletes, who under Olympic rules are forbidden from making any kind of protest at events or venues - including the opening ceremony. It’s not mandatory that every athlete participate in the opening ceremony.

I think that all athletes, especially the American ones, should skip the opening ceremony … not in protest, but because it’s not mandatory. And while protesting is banned at events and venues, I hope that there are some athletes who are courageous enough to stand up to the IOC, to their national Olympic committees, and to the Chinese and express their opinions on live international television, as did Tommie Smith and John Carlos 40 years ago in Mexico City, even though it meant their expulsion from the Games.

There are rules which are meant to be followed (i.e., those ensuring the fairness of the competition), and their are rules which should be broken at almost every opportunity (i.e., those meant to suppress free expression and dissent, because they might prove an embarrassment).

NEW ORDER/JOY DIVISION - CEREMONY

This is why events unnerve me,
Define it all, a different story,
Notice whom for wheels are turning,
Turn again and turn towards this time,
All she asks, the strength to hold me,
Then again the same old story,
Word will travel, oh so quickly,
Travel first and lean towards this time.

Oh, I’ll break them down, no mercy shown,
Heaven knows, it’s got to be this time,
What she heard, these things she said,
The times she cried,
Too frail to wake this time.

I break them down, no mercy shown,
Heaven knows, it’s got to be this time,
Avenues all lined with trees,
Picture me and then you start watching,
Watching forever, forever,
Watching love grow, forever,
Letting me know, forever.