a consideration of LGBT rights and the Church

An interesting interview from Richard Rodriguez, a gay Roman-Catholic and scholar, was published by Salon.com. In it, he argues that the LGBT movement is aligned with feminism and the challenging of Patriarchy within the Church. He raises several provocative points. However, I am reposting here (along with links) my argument that I made in a post on the article’s “letters” section. I disagree that LGBT rights should be seen in the same manner as feminism (kindly read the article).

As a fellow gay Christian, I really appreciate his perspective, particularly with institutional misogyny in the Church. However, for as much insight as he offers, I have to disagree with his fundamental assertion in this interview: the alignment of the LGBT movement with feminism. His depiction of feminism is centred on a freedom of choice. Depicting LGBT issues in the same way is a misguided adoption of the characterization of what it is to be gay that the anti-gay forces give to us (NOTE: I do NOT endorse and specifically, I reject the links provided). Granted, this rhetoric has existed since the early 90s when gay marriage and unions were depicted by us as “lifestyle preference” choices by people like kd lang on television: (please note that this interview is great for many reasons, including Ms. Lang’s outfit and the reaction of the audience – and this was in 1993).

The key issue, as depicted here then, is that free citizens in the West should be able to choose whatever lifestyle we wish to lead in a free society. Religion has no right to define for us that we are unnatural so long as the State is more powerful than religion.

But what is compelling about LGBT rights is precisely the opposite of his depiction of feminism – being LGBT is NOT a choice. What is natural is beyond human definition (that’s what makes it natural, not cultural). Even in the interview, Rodriguez asserts this dubious claim (albeit what he means by “sexual formation” may differ from what we think of as being an LGBT person, the language he uses does not assert such a difference).

“The possibility that we can form ourselves sexually — even form our sense of what a sex is — sets us apart from the traditional roles we were given by our fathers.”

Even scholars who see sexuality as something not inherently biological concede that a mix of psycho-social factors make up gender identity or other orientation in such a way that a person is not choosing it or in control. In short, it is NOT a choice, unlike choosing to give birth to a fetus or aborting it (a feminist issue) .

LGBT people should have the right to marry and have our relationships recognized in civil society precisely because we do NOT choose to be LGBT. Our relationships, even though they may not produce biological offspring, can witness to the same kind of love and grace as depicted in religious sacrament as much as any “straight couple”.Someone can choose to enter into a “marriage,” certainly, but the orientation is not a choice. Falling in love, despite the cynicism of modern culture, is often phenomenological (it happens to us, we don’t choose it). A gay marriage CAN sometimes be a political choice against the patriarchal institutions of our societies. But it is ALWAYS an acknowledgment of the love we feel for one another (as best we understand it at the time), which for us religious folk is a reflection of God’s grace. Denying LGBT relationships is not wrong because of some sociological norm of freedom that must be maintained regarding gender. It is wrong because it is cruel and only leads to terrible suffering (see the Crystal Meth problem in the gay community and suicides among LGBT youth). Rejecting that which is natural when it causes no harm is wrong. Power struggles regarding LGBT rights then are not about freedom of choice. They are about the abolishment of suffering.