Gone with the Gays

IMPORTANT NOTICE ( 10/22 11:47 EST) : I did yet another revision on the end and added some VERY important clarifications. I think you should read it. Its the most important part... BUT because I fear most of you are, understandably, a bit daunted by the task of ingesting this mammoth post, I am going to post some of that revision here. Maybe it will persuade you to read the whole thing. If not, as I said, this is the most important part:

I am exhausted with, not only this post, but also this struggle.

I NEED the love of my family and friends so much, even those who love me but hate my sin.

But I wish that both Uncle Peter and I could say:

If that's the kind of love you give, then keep it...

I want love that respects all of me not just the definitions you chose to acknowledge as legitimate.

But we rarely are afforded such luxurious desires when it comes to love.

Love, REAL LOVE-- genuine concern, care and interest for the well-being of another individual--this type of real love is such a rare thing, and is almost always imperfect in practice.

It is so rare that we'd all be fools not to accept what little of it we can get. However, imperfect it may be.

This truth--that love is precious and rare and should be valued above almost all else-- is an idea that I try very hard to place at the center of my life.

For this reason, I am willing to accept imperfect love from others but also bewildered as to why others would so desperately want to limit the expression and legitimacy of others' love.

Love is rare. Let's try to make more of it. The best we can, eh?

And I am not so arrogant and foolish to believe that I have reached such a high level of love production in my own life that I am beyond censure....

So...if my beloved family and friends will keep trying, so will I.



WARNING:
this is a very long post. quite definitely the longest I have ever done. and there are NO pictures. just me talking and some hefty sections of Gone with the Wind. Also it begins quite strong and clear, but in the 5 hours I have been writing...my logic and resolve weakened before the task of tying many ideas tightly together . And toward the end it gets a little turned over on itself. Still, I think it's worth your time.
Read it in sections, like a serial or a novel...
I hope you will read...

NOTE (10/21 7:45 am EST) : I have done some re-editing and re-working since first posting this essay. If you began earlier, you may want to go back and re-read...sorry...
but 'tis betta now...

Some of you may know that over two years ago now I began working with a theatre company known as the TEAM.

The subject of this post has little to nothing to do with the TEAM-- ( they are great and are really going places and working with them was a fantastic experience. Check them out at theteamplays.org! )-- but I begin my story with this fact because as part of the work I did with the TEAM in creating their current play "Architecting", I read Margaret Mitchell's "Gone with the Wind" for the first time.

Now, as I've been kinda sorta stuck here in Finland, waiting for my Russian Work Visa, I decided to re-read GWTW...

It's provided an interesting back drop for a lot of the current political issues we as a nation are debating and under its lens my own thoughts and struggles, during this heated political season, have been brought into a more acute and painful focus.

From the post title you may have guessed that the subject of the post may have something to do with "the Gays".... whom I know you all love and respect. I mean " some of (your) best friends are gay " aren't they?

More on that later, however I am going to throw a question out here for you all to chew on before I launch off in what might seem like an entirely tangential direction.

The question is:

In what ways are race and sexuality analogous and in what ways are they not so analogous?

So basically, how are sexuality and race (and the issues surrounding them) similar and how are they different?

Just dropping that in here at the top. Okay?

Okay. Back to "Gone with the Wind"...

Well, if you haven't read GWTW--or if its been a long time--or if you've only seen the film--I'll talk a little bit 'bout what I think the book is about.

First, the title "Gone with the Wind". So exactly what is gone with the wind? Well, in my opinion, many things are gone with the wind. A civilization--a way of life--a world view--the Old South. It's basically the tale of how a civilization was swept away--how a way of life passed away.

This is all very dramatic--this is what makes it so irresistibly tantalizing, right? Despite the--well... almost trashiness of it all. No one wants to acknowledge this novel as a real piece of literature.... right? I kind of agree...

I think the popular idea of GWTW as a romance is accurate in the sense that it is a romantic portrayal of the past--it is a romanticized view of something. But it is not a romance in that its prime subject is love. Yes, a major arc of the novel is Scarlett's irrepressible love for Ashley Wilkes, but even that is gone with the wind in the end. Despite its cheesiness and schlockiness, there is some real social observation and criticism going on here. Its worth reading and examining.

One of the most troubling and interesting aspects of the book is its portrayal of this "swept away" civilization's attitudes about race. The most revelatory incidents on race relations from the book were all effectively expunged from the 1939 film. Still, in watching the film, one can clearly see that even in 1939--well, it was a different world.

An incident which only appears in the book (which, incidentally also appears in "Architecting"):

After Atlanta has fallen to the Yankees and Scarlett has struggled to maintain Tara, she eventually returns to Reconstruction-era Atlanta and buys a lumber mill. She is a successful business woman, partly because, unlike the other defeated Confederates she willingly deals with the occupying Yankees and their families who have moved into Atlanta.

As she goes about town doing her business, she is driven by Uncle Peter, a former slave who has stayed on with her dead husband's family.

One day several Yankee women stop Scarlett in need of her advice on a subject. One of the women asks:

"My nurse, my Bridget, has gone back North. She said she wouldn't stay another day down here among the 'naygurs' as she calls them. And the children are just driving me distracted! Do tell me how to go about getting another nurse. I do not know where to apply."

"That shouldn't be difficult," said Scarlett and laughed. "If you can find a darky just in from the country who hasn't been spoiled by the Freedmen's Bureau, you'll have the best kind of servant possible. Just stand at your gate here and ask every darky woman who passes and I'm sure--

The three women broke into indignant outcries.

"Do you think I'd trust my babies to a black nigger?" cried the Maine woman. "I want a good Irish girl."

"I'm afraid you'll find no Irish servants in Atlanta," answered Scarlett, coolness in her voice. "Personally, I've never seen a white servant and I shouldn't care to have one in my house. And," she could not keep a slight note of sarcasm from her words, "I assure you that darkies aren't Cannibals and are quite trustworthy."

" Goodness, no! I wouldn't have one in my house. The idea!"

"I wouldn't trust them any farther than I could see them and as for letting them handle my babies . . ."

Scarlett thought of the kind, gnarled hands of Mammy worn rough in Ellen's service and hers and Wade's. What did these strangers know of black hands, how dear and comforting they could be, how unerringly they knew how to soothe, to pat, to fondle? She laughed shortly.

"It's strange you should feel that way when it was you all who freed them."

"Lor'! Not I, dearie," laughed the Maine woman. "I never saw a nigger till I came South last month and I don't care if I never see another. They give me the creeps. I wouldn't trust one of them. . . ."

For some moments Scarlett had been conscious that Uncle Peter was breathing hard and sitting up very straight as he stared steadily at the horse's ears. Her attention was called to him more forcibly when the Maine woman broke off suddenly with a laugh and pointed him out to her companions.

"Look at that old nigger swell up like a toad," she giggled. "I'll bet he's an old pet of yours, isn't he? You Southerners don't know how to treat niggers. You spoil them to death."

...Scarlett felt, rather than saw, the black chin begin to shake with hurt pride, and a killing rage swept over her. ...the knowledge that they had hurt the faithful old darky with their stupid remarks fired her like a match in gunpowder. For a moment she looked at the big horse pistol in Peter's belt and her hands itched for the feel of it.

"Uncle Peter is one of our family," she said, her voice shaking. "Good afternoon. Drive on, Peter."

She glanced at Peter and saw that a tear was trickling down his nose. Instantly a passion of tenderness, of grief for his humiliation swamped her, made her eyes sting. It was as though someone had been senselessly brutal to a child.

"Peter," she said, her voice breaking as she put her hand on his thin arm. "I'm ashamed of you for crying. What do you care? They aren't anything but damned Yankees!"

"Dey talked in front of me lak Ah wuz a mule an' couldn' unnerstan' dem--lak Ah wuz a Affikun an' din' know whut dey wuz talkin' 'bout," said Peter, giving a tremendous sniff. "An' dey call me a nigger an' Ah' ain' never been call a nigger by no w'ite folks, an' dey call me a ole pet an' say dat niggers ain' ter be trus'ed! Me not ter be trus'ed! Why, w'en de ole Cunnel wuz dyin' he say ter me, 'You, Peter! You look affer mah chillun. ' An' Ah done tek keer of her good all dese y'ars--"

"Nobody but the Angel Gabriel could have done better," said Scarlett soothingly. "We just couldn't have lived without you."

"Yas'm, thankee kinely, Ma'm. Ah knows it an' you knows it, but dem Yankee folks doan know it an' dey doan want ter know it, Huccome dey come mixin' in our bizness, Miss Scarlett? Dey doan unnerstan' us Confedruts."

Scarlett thought: What damnably queer people Yankees are! Those women seemed to think that because Uncle Peter was black, he had no ears to hear with and no feelings, as tender as their own, to be hurt. They did not know that negroes had to be handled gently, as though they were children, directed, praised, petted, scolded. They didn't understand negroes or the relations between the negroes and their former masters.

Now if you are still with me and I haven't lost you because you just weren't counting on reading so much when you clicked on my blog...

...if you are still here, you are probably experiencing some of the same emotions I felt when I first read, and then saw this scene played on stage:

confusion. sadness. anger. discomfort. guilt. dismay. more confusion...

First, if you haven't read the book, yes, Ms. Mitchell insisted on writing all the slave and black characters' speech "in dialect". And neither her editors nor publishers appear to have a had a problem with that...

Anyway.

So. What's going on in this scene? Clearly we have some racism. Yeah? And not just one kind of racism. I am not attempting to guess at Ms. Mitchell's intentions in writing this episode--but one type seems to be not so cool and the other seems to be okay.

So clearly the women from the North are just hateful awful racists, right? They don't understand and don't want to understand. Black people, to use a more accepted phrase than the ones they employed, are not even to be considered in their world view. And how ironic that the Northerners freed them, right? Hmmm...

Now Scarlett, however, views "negroes" with what I would safely say is a certain amount of respect. She respects them as beings with capabilities and feelings. She respects them enough to be aware of these capabilities and feelings and she even values them, doesn't she?

But, her attitude is racist nonetheless, isn't it? She doesn't see them as equals. She doesn't respect them and their capabilities as equal to her own. Their worth is not equal to her own. How does she see them? Like children that need to be praised, taught, scolded...

I would even say she loves Uncle Peter in her own way. She cares very deeply for, not only Uncle Peter, but many of the slaves who have cared for her and served her. She indeed views them as part of her family. Much like parents must see their children. Good parents respect their children--they love them too. But they don't really see their children as equals--at least not while they are children--how could they? They are not. They are not intellectual, emotional or physical equals. Yet.

Good parents must necessarily view their children as their responsibility--to be cared for, taught, and directed. Children aren't ready to be entirely and fully responsible for their choices, to fully direct their own lives, to fully stand as equals in the world...they need to be guided.

But eventually, doesn't every good parent have to let their child become responsible for their own choices? To grow up? To become an equal? Don't good parents do everything to help their children reach this point?

Now Scarlett, and by association, at least in Ms. Mitchell's mind, many Southerners viewed the "negroes" as child-like beings in need of care and direction.

But here's the rub: Uncle Peter wasn't a child. He was a grown man. He was not a child. Nor were any of the millions of grown men and women who were kept as slaves in America during this shameful period.

I believe Scarlett loved Uncle Peter. Sure. I believe many owners of slaves loved their slaves... as strange as it may sound. As incomprehensible as it sounds to us.... we may even say "that's not love... that's not respect... that's .... that's...." what is it?

Its messed up. That's what it is. Its just another form of racism. A dangerous one because it is hidden in "love".

And just to drive home how messed up this idea really was/is, lets look at something else in GWTW that was conveniently left out of the film... the Klan. The KKK. Hmmm hmmm...

Ms. Mitchell gives us her perspective on the formation of the Ku Klux Klan throughout GWTW.

During Reconstruction, Scarlett is living and working and struggling in Atlanta.

Now, as you may know, Reconstruction was, to be blunt, the occupation of the former Confederate States by the Federal Government. This occupation was ostensibly justified by the need to bring order to the war-torn south and to create State Governments that were more in line with Federal Policy.

This meant many things.

One thing that it meant was allowing former slaves to vote and participate in the political process.

Well, as you can imagine. All those former owners who loved their former slaves as children were not too happy about this.

One night Scarlett, coming home from one of her lumber mills, encounters a group of the respectable men of the town in front of a bar. They are discussing and arguing and shouting. Scarlett, always curious, hears something about the State Legislature and asks some of the men she knows for clarification on the subject.

She says:

"What's the legislature been up to now?"

"They've flatly refused to ratify the amendment," said Grandpa
Merriwether and there was pride in his voice. "That'll show the
Yankees."

"And there'll be hell to pay for it--I beg your pardon, Scarlett,"
said Ashley.

"Oh, the amendment?" questioned Scarlett, trying to look intelligent.

Politics were beyond her and she seldom wasted time thinking about
them. There had been a Thirteenth Amendment ratified sometime
before or maybe it had been the Sixteenth Amendment but what
ratification meant she had no idea. Men were always getting
excited about such things. Something of her lack of comprehension
showed in her face and Ashley smiled.

"It's the amendment letting the darkies vote, you know," he
explained. "It was submitted to the legislature and they refused
to ratify it."

"How silly of them! You know the Yankees are going to force it
down our throats!"

"That's what I meant by saying there'd be hell to pay," said
Ashley.

"I'm proud of the legislature, proud of their gumption!" shouted
Uncle Henry. "The Yankees can't force it down our throats if we
won't have it."

"They can and they will." Ashley's voice was calm but there was
worry in his eyes. "And it'll make things just that much harder
for us."

"Oh, Ashley, surely not! Things couldn't be any harder than they
are now!"

"Yes, things can get worse, even worse than they are now. Suppose
we have a darky legislature? A darky governor? Suppose we have a
worse military rule than we now have?"

Scarlett's eyes grew large with fear as some understanding entered
her mind.

Here we have a group of men terrified by the prospect of a world out of their control. And not just the men, Scarlett too.

The most frightening and infuriating thing to them is this idea that these "nergoes" would dare assume a place of equality with them.

People had their place. They didn't hate the "negroes", right? "Negroes" were to be cared for and directed BY them. Not their equals. And definitely NOT their leaders, God forbid!

They just couldn't imagine anything so terrifying as world in which this proper order would be disturbed.

Earlier Mitchell describes Reconstruction-era Georgia like this:

Only the negroes had rights or redress these days. The Yankees had the
South prostrate and they intended to keep it so. The South had
been tilted as by a giant malicious hand, and those who had once
ruled were now more helpless than their former slaves had ever
been...

...The negroes had not yet been given the right to vote but the North
was determined that they should vote and equally determined that
their vote should be friendly to the North. With this in mind,
nothing was too good for the negroes. The Yankee soldiers backed
them up in anything they chose to do, and the surest way for a
white person to get himself into trouble was to bring a complaint
of any kind against a negro...

...they conducted themselves as creatures of small intelligence might naturally be expected to do. Like monkeys or small children turned loose among treasured objects whose value is beyond their comprehension, they ran wild--either from perverse pleasure in destruction or simply because of their ignorance.


Neither life nor property was safe from them and the white people, unprotected by law, were terrorized. Men were insulted on the streets by drunken blacks, houses and barns were burned at night, horses and cattle and chickens stolen in broad daylight, crimes of all varieties were committed and few of the perpetrators were brought to justice.

But these ignominies and dangers were as nothing compared with the
peril of white women, many bereft by the war of male protection,
who lived alone in the outlying districts and on lonely roads. It
was the large number of outrages on women and the ever-present fear
for the safety of their wives and daughters that drove Southern men
to cold and trembling fury and caused the Ku Klux Klan to spring up
overnight. And it was against this nocturnal organization that the
newspapers of the North cried out most loudly, never realizing the
tragic necessity that brought it into being.

So essentially Ms. Mitchell is attempting to justify the formation of the Klan. In her mind, or at least in the mind of her protagonist and the Southern characters, nothing could be more terrifying than "negroes" who were not under their care and direction.

These "negroes" were getting out of hand.

Only chaos and evil and ruin would come upon a society where this order was overturned. Where to them the NATURAL ORDER of things was not respected...

An even worse and more terrifying thought was the idea that those "negroes" would be IN control.

So, of course the Klan had to be created to teach those "negroes". The men of the South who formed and then operated the Klan were simply trying to take back control. Right?

Seems reasonable, right?

They had lost control of their world. It had been taken from them and now every sense of order and meaning that they understood had been turned up side down.


To them a moral and ordered world had been destroyed and replaced by an immoral and unordered one.

In that light, as terrible as it may sound, I can almost understand why the people of the South felt they had to take matters into their own hands...

Almost.

Almost. You see what I just can't understand is how they thought their previous world was a moral and ordered one.

I don't mean to imply that EVERYTHING they valued about their world is beyond my comprehension. Certainly, what they were really afraid of losing was their way of life--and in that broad idea is contained many dear things: family, home, the land upon which they lived and from which they made their living.... AND... wait... how did they make their living from that land?

By and large by the labor of SLAVES!!!

So, how is that moral?

To them it was--because the slaves were there to be directed, cared for, scolded, and praised.... like children?

Slaves...?

I'll never understand it. I don't want to understand it--but I have been trying to because they effects of this period are still with us today.
Anyway--

So, if you are still with me, what does any of this have anything to do with "the gays?"

Remember the question I asked at the beginning? Have you been considering it?

Are race and sexuality analogous?

My short answer is "NO".... no, they are not analogous.... they are not entirely analogous....

They are two very different things.

But, then again, there are some interesting similarities aren't there?

Interesting similarities in the way we have been dealing with the issues both legislatively and socially, right?

I often think that for people who are morally opposed to homosexuality there are basically two ways of dealing with individuals who are "gay".

The first is to deal with them in a way not unlike the Yankee women Scarlett encountered. Gay people are sinners, they are going to hell, they are unclean...."I don't want anything to do with them, get them away from me and my family."

To be honest, I have never encountered this type of response personally. At least not that I know of.

I think this is good. I wouldn't like that.... I have seen it in the media. I have heard about it from friends who have experienced it, but gratefully, I have never had to endure this type of...well...I'm gonna say it: hatred.

The second way is to deal with them in a way not unlike Scarlett herself. The "love the sinner but hate the sin" kinda way.

If there is anyone still reading--an uncomfortable and indignant gasp of shock has most likely erupted from half of you...

I apologize, but that's kind of how I am feeling right now.

I have encountered this type of reaction often. Though, admittedly, few have felt the need to tell me to my face that they love me but consider any actions of mine relating to the expression of my homosexuality as well...sins. Still, I know that a large number of my friends and family practice this type of love.

And recently, in a very public way, the Church has used this philosophy to justify its hefty and vocal support, financially and otherwise, of a particular ballot proposition in a particular state.

I think at this point, we should return again to the question: Are race and sexuality analogous?

Can I really be comparing Scarlett's attitudes to her former slaves to the attitudes of my dear friends and family concerning sexuality?

Well, lets examine the question more closely.

I do think that sexuality can be compared to race effectively in many ways--but it gets complicated. It gets complicated because it gets right to the crux of the issue for a lot of people.

Race, if you believe in its existence at all, is an immutable characteristic. What does that mean? Well, it means that it’s something that cannot be muted, right? It’s something that is not a matter of choice and cannot be hidden. Most of us would not argue the fact that people cannot choose their race--we are born that way and though we may choose to express our "race" in whatever way we choose...we will always be of that "race".

Well, most of us wouldn't argue that point. But there is a growing movement, which argues that, theoretically, race may not even really exist.

What? Race doesn't exist?

Well, what is race? Think about it? Is it skin color? Is it ancestry? Is it genetics? Is it where you were born? When you were born? Where your parents were born? Who their parents were?

Basically, the argument is that race is simply a linguistic and arbitrary category we human beings create to account for differences we perceive between groups of people. But when those perceived groups of people have been inter-marrying and producing offspring for millennia what happens to those categories? Really what becomes of the idea of race?

Another thought, in Brazil, a country that also has a long and tragic history with slavery, there has been a somewhat different approach to the idea of race than here in the US. Here we have tended to talk about Black or White. But in Brazil there is a vast and broad spectrum used to categorize people with varying degrees of European, African and Native ancestry.

I've heard this phenomenon likened to the varying ways one can relate to an avocado. In North America we tend to think of an avocado as a vegetable, we eat it in salads with salty and tangy dressings and salt and pepper it as we would a raw tomato. In Brazil, however, it is considered a fruit and used in milkshakes and deserts.

In this way, someone of mixed "race" in America may be considered black, but in Brazil this same individual could be "pardo" or "moreno" or even "moreno-claro". Just like an avocado may change its definition by crossing borders, so can a person change his or her race by doing the same.

Further, consider our next President of the United States of America, Barrack Obama. He is black, right? Huh? He is African-American, right? Well...his father was from Kenya and that's in Africa. His mother was from Kansas and Hawaii and was...white. So what is he? What is his race? Well, to me his race is whatever Barrack Obama chooses.

He's American--whatever that may mean.

But race matters in America. Or at least mattered. If you doubt that, should we return to Scarlett and her Klan-creatin' gentlemen?

Sadly, horrifyingly, it has mattered a great deal. And for many of us, it still does...

...for many reasons. All arguably good or bad...

Point is--race is one element by which we, human beings, (Americans in particular) chose to define ourselves and others...

Despite how truly indefinable race really is, we use it to define ourselves. And we, as a nation, have decided that this type of definition plays a significant role in many aspects of our lives. In fact we are so aware of its importance that we have legislatively codified the idea that no one has any legal reason for denying us certain rights based upon our "race". We have gone to amazing and astounding lengths to protect against this type of denial. We call the denial of basic human rights based on what we perceive as someone's race discrimination. Essentially, what we are really protecting is an individual's right to define themselves racially as they chose and protecting this choice from discrimination.

Likewise, sexuality has become one way in which we choose to define ourselves.

They argue about the "immutability and mutability" of sexual orientation in the courts and geneticists and psycho-therapists are falling all over themselves and each other to prove that sexual orientation is inborn or learned or a complex psycho-physio phenomenon, but in the end, like race, it comes down to how an individual chooses to define and express his or her sexuality.

So, at least in this sense, yes. I think that race and sexuality are somewhat analogous.

There are many other ways in which, in my opinion, sexuality and race are and are NOT analogous, but--if there is anyone still reading--I will spare further descents into my circuitous and complex musings and cut to the chase...

How does Scarlett and the Klan and Gone with the Wind come out as Gone with the Gays?

Well, if you remember back--I know it is a long time now--back to when Scarlett encountered her gentlemen friends who were all whipped up about the 13th Amendment?

If you remember, the fact that the "negroes" would soon be voting and enjoying "equal rights" with them was what really pissed these men off. I think they were terrified--so fearful of where this path would lead. And, on some level, I can understand their fear.

If you were to read the recent letter from the leadership of the Church outlining their opposition to the unnamed proposition in an unnamed state, you will see that it is largely written in fear of the legal and social implications that will follow a legislative codification of the idea that everyone has a right to marry whomever they chose. (you can read the letter here )

It may surprise you, but I agree that there is some cause for alarm. Many of the fears and scenarios to which they refer have already been realized. They also have a great link to an NPR page (yes National Public Radio) where some recent collisions between same-sex marriage legislation and religious organizations are outlined. (that link is here)

Now, simply because I agree that there is some cause for alarm does NOT mean I agree with their position. Not at all. I simply recognize that any and all legislation should be carefully analyzed and passed with the understanding that it sets a legal precedent upon which further legislation will be built. We do not live in a legislative vacuum.

This is nothing new. Every law that has ever been passed has created a precedent or at least been based on a precedent. It is impossible to foresee all the possible outcomes of any given legislation.

The Church, in my opinion, instead of waging a campaign based on fear of possible outcomes, should be prepared to defend and supported in the defense of their rights as a religious institution in the United States. I, as a citizen, am prepared to defend their rights as well.

I don't believe that their fears, whether founded or not, justify the denial of the right to marry to an entire segment of the population. The denial of rights based on a category of definition so fundamental is simply not an American value.

Or at least has ceased to be an American value... speaking of precedents, Scarlett.

I think, though, when its all shaken out in the wash: The real fear for these people is that their world is being turned upside down. It's being blown away...however, slowly. The are seeing their moral and ordered world changing and that is scary, isn't it?

It is. Who can disagree with that?

Like Scarlett's gentlemen friends and the Southerners of this period in their attitudes toward former slaves, those opposed to same-sex marriage don't hate the gays...

They will even tolerate them...a little.

But the idea that these gays think they could be granted the right to marry??!!

That the gay identity could be so legitimized and accepted as to be granted an equal status in the form of marriage is terrifying!

To put gay relationships on an equal footing with their own spells a definitive upheaval of their ordered and moral world.

Their fear is that this will lead to the ruin and destruction of their very society.

I guess I can understand this fear... a little. ...a very little...

It will bring about some major changes. But you see, I think those changes are good.

I think my relationships ARE as valuable to not only me but to society as a whole.

Like my feelings concerning Reconstruction and the Klan, I have to ask: Maybe some of these ideas should be gone with the wind? You know? Maybe racism, even the "loving" kind Scarlett seemed to practice needed to pass away and...get gone...

To try to sum this all up--I know impossible, right?-- here is a quote taken from the above mentioned letter on the Church's position on unnamed proposition:

"We can express genuine love and friendship for the homosexual family member or friend without accepting the practice of homosexuality or any re-definition of marriage."

I have to say, it’s hard to argue with this statement, right? Of course people should be able to disagree with the practices and politics of family and friends and still love them. Totally...

But, if I were to argue with it....

I would point out the mind-boggling disconnect contained in the idea that you can love a homosexual and not accept the practice of homosexuality.

What does that mean? Is that what they mean when they say "love the sinner and hate the sin"?

Because I guess sinning makes me a sinner and the sin is what I am doing as a sinner so if I am defined by the sin as the sinner than I guess....WHAT?!!!!...and where do you draw the line between the sinner and the sin?

Can you love a person of African American descent and not accept the practice of being African American? (whatever the HELL that means...)

AND...what is a homosexual supposed to DO with that part of their identity if not practice homosexuality?

And I am not JUST talking about SEX people!!!! For the last friggidy liggidy time, being homosexual is not just about who you have SEX with!!!! You know? I mean...come on!

Isn't identity about many things? About how you choose to direct your life? Isn't identity about how you choose to IDENTIFY yourself? In this case, about who you choose to love and all the wonderful ways that colors and shades and defines your world...

But to them...to them THAT is NOT what it means....to them, I'm afraid, it means little more than the fact that this particular person wants to have sex with individuals of the same gender....and why someone would want to do that....well that's just beyond them, but "...we love you anyway!"...

.... So that is what's really at work here. It's subtle and you may miss it.

It's not unlike the way Scarlett sees her "darkies". You see to her, being black-- being "negroe" is being a slave. It is being that child-like being who is so incapable of understanding the world that its only place is in her service and care.... its just a given for her.

Now, it’s kind of the inverse of this idea when it comes to the Church and sexuality--but bear with me--homosexuality is not a definition to them. At least not a legitimate one...its more like a condition to them...

Where Scarlett looks at her black slaves and sees nothing but the definition, the Church and those who " love the sinner but hate the sin" look at the homosexual and REFUSE to see the definition....

They pay lip service to the idea--they concede that there are people who chose to define themselves as "homosexual", but to grant this choice any legitimacy is impossible and terrifying...

And to them, what is the ultimate bestowment of legitimacy?

Marriage.

They cannot let that happen...

if it does their world might be Gone with the Gays in no time at all!

Now...

I am exhausted with, not only this post, but also this struggle.

I NEED the love of my family and friends so much, even those who love me but hate my sin.

But I wish that both Uncle Peter and I could say:

If that's the kind of love you give, then keep it...

I want love that respects all of me not just the definitions you chose to acknowledge as legitimate.

But we rarely are afforded such luxurious desires when it comes to love.

Love, REAL LOVE-- genuine concern, care and interest for the well-being of another individual--this type of real love is such a rare thing, and is almost always imperfect in practice.

It is so rare that we'd all be fools not to accept what little of it we can get. However, imperfect it may be.

This truth--that love is precious and rare and should be valued above almost all else-- is an idea that I try very hard to place at the center of my life.

For this reason, I am willing to accept imperfect love from others but also bewildered as to why others would so desperately want to limit the expression and legitimacy of others' love.

Love is rare. Let's try to make more of it. The best we can, eh?

And I am not so arrogant and foolish to believe that I have reached such a high level of love production in my own life that I am beyond censure....

So...if my beloved family and friends will keep trying, so will I.

If you are still reading, thank you! I love you all immensely.... however you chose to define yourselves!

Peace out and God bless!