Thoughts on the current exchanges between Pete Buttigieg and Mike Pence

In following the recent public exchanges between Pete Buttigieg and Mike Pence over religion and public policies surrounding LGBTQ matters, I have been reminded of an exchange I had locally in Montgomery County more than fifteen years ago.

         In January 2004, I was Chair of the Montgomery County Board of Education’s Citizens Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development. One of the Committee’s principal responsibilities was to review secondary health education curriculum as it pertained to matters of sexual orientation and gender identity – matters which at that time were absent from the curriculum (or from any other discussion in the school system). 

         In the course of our discussions, two very conservative members of the Committee offered materials from the Corporate Resource Council, which asserted that homosexuality was a disease and should not be viewed in anything other than a negative light. Michelle Turner, a newer member of the Committee (who I knew saw herself as a devout Christian) told me that she thought we should follow the advice of the Corporate Resource Council.  At that time, I did not know how fully formed her views on sexual orientation were.  Below I reproduce the response I sent to her.

         She was not convinced, and she later revealed herself to be a principal anti-gay activist, and ally of Phyllis Schlafly, among others. After thorough examinations by the entire Committee, her and the other two conservative members’ views were rejected.  The Committee made recommendations to follow the wisdom of every mainstream American medical and mental health professional association in this area.  After an initially-successful attempt by the Alliance Defense Fund to derail the effort, the school system added useful material in 2007 and, in 2014, implemented a more wide-ranging approach.  See https://pflag.org/blog/curriculumvictorymontgomerycounty

         I found my January 23, 2004 exchange with Michelle (with home I always got along with personally), and thought it is at least somewhat a propos to the current “controversy.”  Here it is:

From my 1/23/04 E-Mail to Michelle Turner

     The Corporate Resource Council is affiliated with the Alliance Defense Fund, which describes itself as "a unique Christian legal organization that works to protect and defend traditional family values...."  It was founded in 1994 by a group including James Dobson of Focus on the Family. (http://www.alliancedefensefund.org)

     Focus on the Family states its position

on homosexuality as follows:

     "Are people born gay? Shouldn't we be tolerant of everyone? Can people change? Should they?  Amidst the barrage of questions, we must first turn to God's Word -- our ultimate authority -- for answers.  While the Bible clearly states that homosexuality runs contrary to God's plan for relationships, those who struggle with homosexual feelings are still God's children, in need of his forgiveness and healing.  Therefore, parents, families and churches have a responsibility to love the homosexual while clearly denouncing this lifestyle."

http://www.family.org.pplace/topics/a0025334.cfm

         While the constitutional doctrine of separation of church and state requires that we not impose a theology in our public

schools, the religious values each of us have certainly inform

our views.  Without getting into a long-winded discussion of at

what point religious views are or are not appropriate in

developing public school programs, I offer the following for your consideration in answer to the Focus on the Family statement, which, it seems to me, undergirds most of the materials submitted by Retta and Jackie that we have not yet voted on.

         In an old story, two cynics are said to have approached the great Jewish philosopher Hillel and challenged him to summarize the whole Torah (the Jewish holy books) while standing on one foot. Hillel replied, "What is hateful to you, do not do to another. The rest is commentary.  Go and learn."

         The two most often cited Biblical texts concerning homosexuality are both found in the book of Leviticus, where they are in the context of a larger section directing sexual behavior. First, it is written: "Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence." (Leviticus 18:22) The second citation is from Leviticus 20:13, where we read that "If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death - their blood guilt is upon them."  

         If Focus on the Family (FOTF) purports to follow the

precise word of Scripture, then presumably it should be

advocating capital punishment rather than "forgiveness and

healing."  Unless, of course, FOTF is limiting forgiveness and

healing to those who have "struggled" with homosexual feelings, but have never acted upon them.  Yet, I suspect that FOTF is not advocating -- and would not advocate -- that we should execute anyone engaging in homosexual activity.  But if FOTF does not so advocate, then it cannot say that it is simply turning to God's Word for the definitive answers.

         What it comes down to is this:  None of us really take every word of Scripture literally, and each of us who accept the Bible as part of our faith tradition must make a determination as to what in Scripture is useful and humane and, in the broadest sense, Godly.   This does place a great responsibility on every human being.  Freedom is a scary thing sometimes, but it is what America is based upon.   We cannot, in good conscience, simply say, "well, the Bible says so," without further exploration unless, for example, we are ready to execute anyone who has engaged in homosexual activity.  We really have to use the brains God has given us.  For what it is worth, my view is that the basic teachings we get from the Judeo-Christian tradition are the various versions of the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or "What is hateful to you, do not do unto another").  I think that what we personally accept or decline to accept from words written down by people many centuries and even millenia ago should be dependent upon whether they comport with that Rule.

         A century and a half ago, even in America, a large number of people assumed that slavery was acceptable; and people used Scripture to justify it.

         A century ago, even in America, most people assumed that women should not be allowed to vote or have equal rights with men; and people used Scripture to justify it.

         A half-century ago, even in America, a large portion of our population believed that segregation of the races was the right thing to do; and people used Scripture to justify it.

         As we learn more and more about the human condition, if we are wise, we adapt our thinking to expand freedom and happiness in concert with the Golden Rule.

         All the rest is commentary.