Standing on the Side of Love


So yesterday I was running on fumes after returning from CT on Wed.

It was tense. We were ushered into a hearing room in the deep dark basement of the State House as they began the debate on item 19 on the agenda. Jarrod Barious was amazing.


It was joyous as well as they voted to recess until the last day of the legislative session, hopefully to put this whole episode in the past. As the vote was announced, we rejoiced and then took the party to the Nurses' Hall.

Nothing like a success to help buoy the spirits! We are hoping that we can keep discrimination off the ballot in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and perhaps even write some good protections into the state Constitution. Wouldn't that be novel?


What's it Really about?


With Peterr's post on FDL about gay marriage and my earlier post about yesterday's Busy Day, I went back into my archives to a sermon on "Closets." One reading was taken from the West Wing ( I said on the "About" page, I'll be bringing up stuff now and again from WW. Here is the WW dialogue with the other "reading" after the break.


West Wing Episode 19
“Let Bartlet be Bartlet”
Aaron Sorkin, writer

Sam is in a conference room with representatives from the military and congress hashing out, yet again, the issue of gays in the military. He is arguing specific cases of service men and women who have been “outed.”

An army Major says:
“A lot of the cases you are talking about of gays being discharged came from voluntary statements”

Sam replies

“They were not voluntary statements. Not by any definition given in any civilian court in this country.

It is not a voluntary statement when it is given to a psychoteherapist as in the case of Marine Corporal David Blessing.

It is not a voluntary statement when its made in a personal diary as in the case of former West Point Cadet Nicole Garrison.

Read More . . .

Busy Day


It was a hot sticky, sometimes rainy day in downtown Boston today. My Episcopal priest friend Anne said that someone from the group Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry asked if we knew what a "mitzvah" was (probably one of the rabbis). They answered the question themselves, "a mitzvah is wearing a collar on a day like today." Yes, there were a few of us in our clerical collars. I didn't consider it a mitzvah, just "suiting up" for what needed to be done.

Floating around the halls inside the State House were a number of nuns in full length wool habits. None of us could figure out what they were doing there or what statement they were making. They weren't hanging out across the street with the anti-marriage folk. They had no buttons on showing any "side." They could have been at the State House for any reason.

Then there were the blonds wearing pearls . . . .

Read More . . .