September 2007 Archives

     I keep hearing about fundamentalists: Christian fundamentalists, Islamic fundamentalists and (occasionally) Jewish fundamentalists. And if there's one thing Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, questioning, queer, leather, supportive, and other  (did I miss anyone?) people know about fundamentalists, it is this: They don't like us.

     So what are the fundamentals of Christianity anyway?

     We could look at the teachings of Jesus. Jesus told one man, who claimed to have followed the law perfectly, to sell his possessions and give the money to the poor. I don't often hear pastors harping on that one, but there's a strong illustration of using one's privilege to help others.

     Jesus also forgave people - constantly, and without requirement of penance. There's a lesson by example, but how much forgiveness do we hear from pulpits?

     Jesus healed people, and how many healing words do we hear from pulpits?

     But if there is one strong lesson from Jesus, it is this: The two greatest commandments are to love God and love one another. Jesus says that all of the law and all of the prophets are based on these two.

     Jesus did not invent those ideas - they were already part of Jewish belief.

     We can argue about the Trinity, the meaning of Jesus's death, the question of Jesus's resurrection, and whether the bread and wine (or grape juice) have any real Jesus in them. We can stress out all we want about who's in and who's out, whether there is eternal torment, and what sins are too vile for us to forgive.

     But all of that is fluff. The fundamentals, my brothers and sisters, are these:

• The first is this: 'Hear O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.
• 'The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."

     To me, that's true fundamentalism.

     So call me a true fundamentalist.

     As someone who transitioned over two decades ago, I don't have much to fear with respect to being called out on gender identity. I have much more to fear due to my identity as a lesbian in a 17 year relationship. Yet I am unwilling to use my privilege as an apparently cisgender person to grab for protection as a Lesbian while leaving behind my less privileged brothers and sisters.

     It is morally wrong for me to abandon my brothers and sisters. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus tells of two respectable leaders who chose not to help a man who was robbed, beaten, stripped naked, and left for dead. They knew they were at risk of becoming ritually unclean, requiring them to turn back to Jerusalem - a costly delay.

     Yet a Samaritan - who didn't even get along with the Jews - was so moved by the man's situation that he stopped to help and even paid to have the man stay at an inn and recover.

     We have the opportunity to stop and help - even if it causes us delay - or to walk on with the hope that the man will not suffer too much waiting for us to come back

     If it is more difficult to pass ENDA with transgender language included, what does that tell you? It tells me that more people are willing to accept discrimination against transgender people and, therefore, transgender people need this law even more than gay and Lesbian people do.

     Waiting until people don't want to discriminate before passing an anti-discrimination law makes no sense.

     Waiting until people don't want to discriminate against a class of people before passing an anti-discrimination law to protect that class makes no sense.

     I'm siding with the Samaritans on this. Walk on by at your own risk.

     We live in a very independent culture. We're big on personal responsibility, and "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps". That rugged individualism often leads to a "somebody else's problem" mentality where we don't want to get involved.

     In the fight for gay and lesbian rights, a lot of opposition has come from conservative black churches. Indeed, many black men will not identify as gay or bisexual, although they have sex with other men "on the down-low". So for black men who have sex with men, there is a cultural tearing between fighting for their equal rights as African Americans and fighting for their rights as men who have sex with men (MSM).

     And when Human Rights Campaign (HRC) stood up for the black students in Jena, Louisiana, many gay and lesbian people shouted "this is not our fight".

     Now, due to the backlash from conservative groups, Congress is removing protection for transgender people from the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). So do I support this as a Lesbian, knowing that I will be protected from being fired or evicted based only on my sexual orientation? Or do I reject this because it I can still be fired or evicted because of a transition I made two decades ago?

     For me, this is not an academic argument. It's a choice between some protection and "all or nothing". When ENDA was first proposed, HRC actively worked to exclude protection for transgender persons, with a promise to revisit the issue later to include us. They have since come to support inclusion.

     It's easy to say "at least we'll get some protection" and cut off a segment of our population. After all, it's not really a loss to transgender people: we don't have protection now anyway! Yet the more we divide ourselves up into smaller and smaller groups, the weaker we become. Should there be separate gay employment and lesbian employment? What about bisexuals - when they're in straight relationships, they're already part of the majority! What about the straight-looking straight-acting folks - they can "pass", so why should they support leathermen and bulldykes?

     One of the consistent themes of the Bible has to do with how we treat our brothers, sisters, and neighbors. In the Bible, people are constantly looking for a way to lop off a group of people. For example, the priests and scribes wanted to not have to worry about foreigners, tax collectors, prostitutes, and the other unclean.  Yet Jesus pointed out that everyone is a neighbor. Paul pointed out that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female. We are all of the same flesh - all human, and we cannot have one of us suffer without it affecting the rest of us.

     It's not just the body of Christ, it's the family of humanity. There is no reason to leave any of our brothers and sisters behind. There is no reason to draw a line - a division - between us.

     And when we do, we weaken the body. We become small and isolated. We become individuals with individual problems, and not a community that works together for justice for everyone.

     For me, I will not support this bill that will half-protect me and protect some of my brothers and sisters but not others. And I will not support those legislators who are willing to defer justice for some in the name of expediency.


sources:
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid49423.asp
http://transadvocate.com/enda/last-ditch-effort-the-right-wing-whopper-lies.htm
http://www.bilerico.com/2007/09/homotextual_charles_haynes.php
http://www.bilerico.com/2007/09/a_nontransgenderinclusive_enda_no_way.php
http://www.gendertalk.com/?q=node/239

     The One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) organization  came up with a goal of a $100 laptop computer for children in developing countries. While they're not yet down to that price point, they have created a surprisingly durable and waterproof low-power computer - using so little power that it can be powered by a solar panel or a foot-driven generator. The computer is so intriguing that a lot of people in the West have wanted to get their hands on one.

     Well, that opportunity is coming.

     For two weeks this November, people in the United States of America will be allowed to spend $399 to get one of these computers, with another being sent to a child in the developing world. This is an amazing chance to give 50% and still get something very cool for your money. And the computer is so low-power, it's very "green".

It's not exactly the Widow's Mite, but it's a start.

See the full story:  '$100 laptop' to sell to public [BBC]

     A young man of only thirteen years wrote an amazing essay, entitled "An Experience that Changed Me". I will just quote the closing paragraph:

I know people from lots of different kinds of families. Some families are divorced, so some of my friends only live with one parent at a time. Other families have someone who is mentally challenged in their family. But no matter how different they are, they are all people. My goal is that some day everybody will be treated with love.

     No wonder Jesus said "suffer the little children to come unto me". The openness of this young man shows great promise. I pray he does not lose sight of his goal.

Liberal Believer pleads "Could We Have a President With Courage Please?"

The Bible tells us we have been given stewardship of the Earth, but how are our leaders working as stewards?

Do they take the power with which they have been entrusted, and use it to return greater benefit for all? Or do they bury it in there here and now?

I suspect "protecting the current economy" is a bit more of a burial than "invest it in our planet's future". As in Jesus's Parable of the Talents, time will tell... when the master reviews how the servants have handled the master's property.

Pat Boone tells a fairy tale about how sex education turns kids gay, gives them aids, and watches them die, as reported on Good As You.

Maybe he's trying to get back in the good graces of the far right after his heavy metal album.

     In tales of a pop icon, we learn who the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, supportive, and questioning people are. Some see these people as the enemy, trying to destroy society. If you read the article, you might realize these are real people who are experiencing real harm.

     "Who is my neighbor?" is a question often asked. Jesus told a story about two religious leaders who passed by a man - who had been beaten, stripped naked, and left for dead - for fear that they would become ritually unclean and have to turn back to Jerusalem to be cleansed. An outsider, someone who was considered to be "the wrong kind of people", was moved by compassion and stopped to help the man - even paying for his stay at an inn to recover. The question Jesus asked was "who was the neighbor to the injured man?"

     We all have the choice of being strangers or neighbors. May we be moved by compassion to choose to be neighbors.

     The war will pay for itself, or so we were told... Iraq would pay for its own rebuilding with its own revenues.

     We now know that isn't true, but what could we buy with what we're spending?

     According to the American Friends Service Committee:

• homes for almost 6,500 families
• health care for 423,529 children, or
  
• renewable electricity equipment for 1.27 million homes

     That would be a lot of good had we not been in this war, but those numbers are not for the whole war, nor even since "Mission Accomplished", nor since the surge.

     Those numbers are per day.

     The numbers are based on what we're spending plus what we will spend to replace equipment and provide care for wounded veterans. For more information, see the Washington Post article.

     We know how much suffering this war is causing. Now we know how much suffering we could have alleviated with the same money.

As reported in the Washington Post, the US government is collecting - and retaining for 15 years - information about where you fly, drive, or sail. In addition, they are collecting information about what you carry with you, including books and flashlights.

Getting back to the golden rule (previously mentioned here), why is the government of the people, by the people, and for the people treating the people in a way (collecting information) that they (the government) would rather not be treated (executive privilege, state secrets)?

Who runs this country anyway? Apparently, not the people. While I'm not big on judging the behavior of others, it may be time we pointed out the hypocrisy of those we have chosen to be our servants. And if they're not willing to serve, perhaps it's time we asked them to make room for someone who will.

     A talking point I often see is that same-sex marriage will devalue marriage.


     But will it?

     In the Western world, marriage is rarely traded on the open market. Few of us are likely to sell our children into marriage for cash, a house, or livestock.

     Marriage is valued by the people in it. Lately, some highly-visible celebrities have had month-long, week-long, or even day-long marriages. These do not strike me as highly valued marriages.

     Likewise, we have seen some people - even "family values" folks - outed as having affairs and/or patronizing prostitutes. It would seem that they do not value marriage that highly.

     When gay and lesbian people are willing to fight for the right to marry, it shows they consider marriage to have a high value. They are willing to invest heavily in marriage.

     To the Christians reading this, I would like to ask:

     When Paul ministered to gentiles, and when Peter was told to meet with Cornelius, did that devalue the relationship the existing, Jewish Christians had with Christ?

     In Matthew 20, Jesus tells a parable about workers and wages:

For the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard.

After agreeing with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard.

And going out about the third hour he saw others standing idle in the market place; and to them he said, `You go into the vineyard too, and whatever is right I will give you.' So they went.

Going out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour, he did the same.

And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing; and he said to them, `Why do you stand here idle all day?' They said to him, `Because no one has hired us.' He said to them, `You go into the vineyard too.'

And when evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his steward, `Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last, up to the first.'

And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them received a denarius.

Now when the first came, they thought they would receive more; but each of them also received a denarius. And on receiving it they grumbled at the householder, saying, `These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.'

But he replied to one of them, `Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what belongs to you, and go; I choose to give to this last as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?

     Now, of course Jesus is talking about those who have long been faithful, and those faithful for a short time, and that they receive the same reward. But the lesson I am drawing here is: those who worked a short time and received a denarius did not devalue the denarius. Those who worked the full day still retained the same value for which they had bargained.

     Same sex marriage cannot devalue a couple's marriage. Only those in the marriage can devalue it.

     Cherish the bond you have with your spouse. Keep it healthy, holy, and happy. If you do these things, no one else's marriage can cheapen yours.

     I was part of an online discussion where one of the participants equated two ideas:

• Calling those who oppose homosexuals "homophobic"
• Calling homosexuals "moralphobic"

     So let's examine this. In the first example, people are opposing homosexuality. The term "homophobia" implies fear of homosexuals. Might there be other reasons to oppose homosexuals, other than fear? If there was no fear of harm from homosexuality, what other reason could there be? I will admit I am at a loss here, but perhaps a heterosexual reader can enlighten me.

     In the latter example, homosexuals are opposing... well, no. Homosexuals don't oppose heterosexuality, heterosexual marriage, or celibacy. And homosexuals in general do not oppose morals, although the set of morals they embrace may not include "sex is only for a married man and woman". In fact, many homosexuals want the responsibilities of the bonds of marriage. That hardly seems to be a fear of morals.

     But perhaps I'm missing the point. If I am, I hope someone will explain it to me, and to my female partner of nineteen years.

Here are a few fun web toys:

Internet Hyperspace Portal
World Wide Web cul de sac

Fake WWW error pages:

• Full
• Clogged
• No Connect List

When I was in high school, Tom Petty's "Refugee" was in heavy rotation on the radio. (Of course, back then we didn't have CDs and digital music players.)

In the United States of America, most of us don't have to live like a refugee. But there is an opportunity to find out what it's like.

Doctors Without Borders is setting up interactive refugee camps in major cities. This is a great opportunity to see how people live when they've been displaced by war and genocide.

It's also a great opportunity to decide whether this is how we would care to live.

If a refugee camp is not your idea of how you want to live, see whether one of the following resonates with you:

• This is the sum of duty: do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you. (Brahmanism)
• Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.(Buddhism)
• Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law of the prophets.(Christianity)
• Surely it is the maxim of loving-kindness: Do not unto others that you would not have them do unto you. (Confucianism)
• No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself. (Islam)
• What is hateful to you, do not to your fellowmen. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary. (Judaism)
• Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain and your neighbor's loss as your own loss. (Taoism)
• An' it harm none, do as ye will. (Wicca)
• That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself. (Zoroastrianism)
• Be excellent to each other (Bill & Tedism, Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure)

Perhaps, by putting ourselves in the place of the other - even for a moment - we can see how we are blessed, and consider how we can share those blessings with others.

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/news/561276,AU17_CLINIC_WEB.article

Pro-life groups are protesting a Planned Parenthood clinic. There are lawsuits both ways to open the clinic and prevent the clinic from opening.

I grow weary of the all-or-nothing sides of this debate. To say that a pregnancy can never be terminated is far too restrictive to my mind, yet there are far too many abortions that could have been avoided by some personal responsibility beforehand.

While I don't see a 16 cell blastocyst as a human being, I am sensitive to the potential and what this life is growing into, just as those of us who have been born are always growing into something new. Abortion is a traumatic event for the woman and, depending on development, likely a traumatic event for the fetus.

Like capital punishment and war, abortion is a failure on our parts to find a better solution. A truly pro-life stance, in my humble opinion, seeks to prevent the situations which lead people to make the choices to kill.

And yes, a 16 cell blastocyst is alive. Even if I don't recognize it as yet being human, I recognize it as life.

How do we learn to only create life when we're prepared for it, and to not end life because we were careless? How do we learn to help people to be safe partners in community, and not end life because they have lost connection with us? How do we learn to live peacefully with our neighbors, and not resort to violence that inevitably harms and kills the innocent?

To me, those are the pro-life questions. The answers will lead us to deeper love.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/17/health.care/index.html

     With the Democratic candidates lining up to present their national health care plans, we might wonder what it will cost for everyone to be insured. Surely there will be some effect on the rest of us.

     To be sure, basic health care coverage for all will mean longer lines in the waiting rooms of general and family practitioners. And there will certainly be an increased cost in either taxes or in premiums. So is it fair that those of us with access to health care be burdened with the costs for those who don't?

     No, it is not fair. It is not fair that those who worked hard to get through school and get a job with benefits pay also for the benefits of those who may not have worked hard at school, or who may not have gone to college. It is not fair, but fairness is not the reason for universal health care.

     There are self interests at hand. Although your wait at the doctor's office may be longer, the load on hospital emergency departments will be lighter as peoples' colds and influenza, stomach aches and fevers are cared for by a primary care physician rather than an ED staff. That means the waiting room at the hospital will be nearly empty when you arrive with chest pain or facial paralysis.

     The cost of primary care is cheaper than ED care, so there will be savings there too. And many problems may be caught earlier, resulting in less drastic - and expensive - emergency care.

     Crowded areas of poor people without health care access can be reservoirs of illness. The working poor may be unloading pallets of fruit, or washing dishes in your favorite restaurant, or delivering your newspaper. Although most businesses strive to keep their customers safe from disease, many of the poor are afraid to miss a day of work due to illness. And if the local viruses don't scare you, consider this: the most likely place for an epidemic of bird flu, or a terrorist's engineered disease, is in those who don't seek treatment for their symptoms.

     Health care can reduce absenteeism among the working poor, reducing prices for products and/or increasing a company's profit. There's a definite financial benefit to keeping the poor as healthy as possible.

     None of these are the reason for universal health care.

     The reason is mercy. The reason is that we should have mercy on those who are suffering. They, like us, are human. Like us, they suffer. Unlike us, they suffer more. And that suffering is not fair.

     The cost of mercy will not likely be high. The benefit in decreasing suffering will outweigh the cost.

     That is far better than fair.

...or the Decalogue, the ten utterances. There are several versions of what I often call "God's Top Ten List". Here's one, that actually runs longer than ten because I haven't grouped them in any of the traditional manners:

1. I am the Lord your God
2. Thou shalt have no other gods before me
3. Thou shalt not make for thyself an idol
4. Thou shalt not make wrongful use of the name of thy God
5. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
6. Honor thy Father and Mother
7. Thou shalt not kill
8. Thou shalt not commit adultery
9. Thou shalt not steal
10. Thou shalt not bear false witness
11. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house.
12. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife

     How often is the commandment (7 on this list) against killing violated because a world leader used the name of God to justify it (4 on this list)? And how often does the motivation for such wars come from covetousness of the "neighbor's house" - land or other resources (11 on this list)? And isn't the taking of land by military force a form of stealing (9 on the list)?

     What troubles me even more about this particular war (if it is possible for me to be more troubled), is the possibility that leaders knowingly gave false testimony about Saddam Hussein's capabilities (number 10 on this list). In fact, it has been reported that George H. W. Bush (who ran the CIA, spent 8 years as vice president, and 4 years as president) told his son George W. Bush that it was a bad idea to invade Iraq, but the son ignored the advice - a possible violation of number 6 on the above list.

     The idea that a person ignored his father's wisdom and deliberately used the name of God ("God told me to strike Saddam") in conjunction with false witness ("Weapons of Mass Destruction") to kill people in war to take control of coveted oil is one that deeply concerns me. My prayer is that our leaders have merely made a series of serious blunders, rather than intentionally breaking so many commandments.

If it was intentional, may they experience God's mercy.  

http://www.chicagopride.com/news/article.cfm/articleid/4824976

African-American churches have often struggled with the idea of gay Christians. Yet Pillar of Love, now four years old, offers a culturally authentic spiritual experience and is now moving to a new home in the Chicago GLBT community's Center on Halsted.

I would like to see more activity on the South and West sides of Chicago. Still, a successful GLBT black church is something to be thankful for, and I offer praise to God for the leadership of the Reverend Phyllis V. Pennese and the rest of the staff and congregation of Pillar of Love.

    A major insurance company that sought out business from a local United Church of Christ congregation in Michigan has subsequently refused to even provide a quote for coverage when it learned the church's denomination supported same-gender marriage equality and the ordination of gay clergy. - United Church of Christ

    West Adrian UCC was approached by Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company to change their insurance. When West Adrian consented to a quote, the insurance company said that the denominations "support" for gay clergy and same-sex marriage made the church too high a risk, and refused to offer a quote.

    Aside from the fact that the insurance agent approached the church without knowing about the denomination's history, which shows a lack of basic research, there are a number of other problems with the company's assumptions.

     Although General Synod 25, the semi-annual meeting held in 2005, approved a resolution supporting same-sex marriage, that action only encourages individual congregations to consider such support. General Synod resolutions do not control congregations, and only "speak to, not for" the United Church of Christ. Likewise, although individual UCC associations (local bodies that organize a small number, usually some 20-100, congregations) may ordain gay clergy, the individual congregations determine who they will call and are free to choose not to accept gay clergy.

     And the UCC "Open and Affirming" (OnA) status is also a local choice. West Adrian UCC had not voted to be OnA. It is ironic that West Adrian may be precisely the type of church Brotherhood Mutual wanted to insure.

     Of course, businesses are free to decline a contract based on the risk involved. Yet this congregation was judged not on its claims history, not on its property, not on its members, and not on its ideology - but on the perceived risk by being a congregation associated with a denomination in which some have chosen to support gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered persons.

     In Matthew 5:11, Jesus says, "Blessed are you, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake." And so it is with this congregation. May they, and we, see the blessings of being accused of love.

Divorce rates are rising. People are living together outside of marriage. Those in marriage are committing adultery. Sexually transmitted diseases - including HIV - are on the rise. And homosexuals are trying to get same sex "marriage" legalized.

The most recent homosexual advance is in Iowa, where the ban on same sex "marriage" was found unconstitutional by a district court. With homosexuality gaining ground, is America becoming a modern-day Sodom?

Pundits have called parts of America "Sodom". We have read it in our newspapers and blogs, heard it on our radios and televisions: "Hollywood is America's Sodom", "Las Vegas is America's Sodom".

This is not a new idea. In his 1973 American Quarterly article , "The Erotic South: Civilization and Sexuality in American Abolitionism", Ronald G. Walters notes that, prior to the Civil War, among the issues the American North had against the South was the idea that "The Southern states are one Great Sodom a vast brothel".

Perhaps it would be helpful to examine what Sodom was all about.

Of course, we know what Sodom was about. All of the men in Sodom were homosexual - that's why they call it "sodomy". Yet it's helpful to strengthen our understanding by reexamining the scriptures to get a better grip on what the Bible tells us.

In Genesis 13:13, we read that "...the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly. " That's a bit unsatisfying. We know it means homosexuality, but this verse just isn't clear enough. Genesis 18:20-21 doesn't help much: "And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know."

Genesis 19:1,4-5 is the payoff: "And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; 4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them."

"Know" is the word used to mean "have sex with". So it's clear that all of the men of Sodom were homosexuals who wanted to have sex with Lot's visitors.

If you have any doubt, you can read what the righteous Lot did to protect the men: Genesis 19:8: "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof."

Lot offered his virgin daughters for sex in place of the Angels! And did the men accept that? No! Genesis 19:9: "And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door."

Wait. They wanted to judge him? With sex? I'm confused.

What's more confusing is that the word translated as "know" is used both for sex and for knowing a person well. The very same word is used earlier in the same story: Genesis 18:18: Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him." I'm pretty sure this doesn't mean God has sex with Abraham, only that he knows him intimately.

There are other references to Sodom, the most descriptive of which is Ezekiel 16:49 "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."

Aha! committed abomination! That's the homosexuality reference, right?

Perhaps. What's more troubling is the set of more descriptive references to pride, fullness, idleness, ignoring the poor and needy, and haughtiness.

"America: love it or leave it." "My country right or wrong." Tax cuts that benefit the rich more than the poor. Cuts to programs for needy children. Antagonism toward immigrants. These are the troubling signs of a culture tumbling toward a Sodomic end.

The sin of Sodom was how the people treated those in need: the poor and those who were traveling. They were concerned about maintaining their standard of living and keeping undesirables out. Sound familiar?

So is America the new Sodom? Are we self-satisfied, well-fed, lazy people with our noses in the air while we brush aside the needy?

In Genesis 18:23-32, Abraham bargains with God to not destroy the city if there are 50 righteous. After God agrees, Abraham bargains God down to 40, 30, 20, and finally 10. Even so, 10 righteous people are not found in Sodom.

In the United States of America are many people working to help the poor and to welcome newcomers to our country. Many give much of their spare time to make this nation a better place for all people.

Same sex marriage won't make the USA into Sodom. But is America the new Sodom?

No, as long as there are 50, 40, 30, 20, even ten people who are willing to expend their effort to make this a better country, America is not the new Sodom... yet.