A protest with action an article to challenge you..

Today is, "A Day Without Gay" as the homosexual community takes a day off of work and goes out in the community to do good deeds. For those that cannot take today off, many are encouraged to use the weekend to positively impact the community.... I like the concept, I think we should have a community impact day where we all take a day off once a month and help those less fortunate then us... The church I attend, Rock Harbor (http://www.rockharbor.org/) has a yearly event where church services are suspended for a weekend and the people of the church hit the streets in coordinated events to impact the community in a positive way - cleaning up, painting homes, cooking lunches and/or dinners for people all over Southern California - imagine if once a month this was a national event sponsored by major corporations - we would change lives one month at a time....

All the written - my point for today's blog is focused more on Gay Marriage. But before I started my blog, I was listening to KROQ and a young man came on talking about a "A Day Without Gay" and hence the intro that led to thought that now leads to my real thought... It has been a long morning so just have patience with me, thanks...

Anyway, the whole thought of gay marriage has been on my mind since Prop 8 made the TV and the ballot box here in CA. I have read arguments on both sides - but no one has made a better and more clear argument then Lisa Miller at Newsweek.... Her article strikes a cord but does not offend. She is a powerful writer that bridges biblical principle with the rights of people in a free society. Furthermore, Lisa, challenges the faithful on their perception of marriage and the historical and biblical nature of marriage....

We, as a faithful community (I put myself in this category though many would probably want to kick me out after reading this blog), often read the bible with our 20th century glasses on interpreting the passages without a historical reference of perspective. This removes much of the power and context of what has been written in the bible - you need to understand the history of the world that the bible was written in to make it applicable to our current world...

And on the history note - a bit from Lisa's article: Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?

Now many will look at her reference to Abraham as a man that sinned - after all God told him that Sarah would be with child and Abraham's lack of faith led him to sleeping with his servant. But the other's, all sinners like everyone who walks this earth, where polygamists - they had literally homes full of women at their disposal. These actions are not chastised in the bible or by modern day preachers.... and why not? A historical and cultural difference, that’s why... Things were done differently and women were not people but property... So by the rational of adjusting to cultural norms - from having many wives to just one (now it is against the law and as my understanding a "sin" to have more than one wife or an extra marital affair) should we not adjust our paradigm and allow same sex marriage? Just a thought...

If you are at all interested please read Lisa's article below - it if full of powerful arguments including - slavery arguments the church used to make, race relation arguments, etc.... The church and the faithful are in a tough spot right now - challenged to love thy neighbor as they love themselves - being asked to change with culture (like they have done in the past) while at the same time holding true to their core values... And all of this challenges a core argument of the church and faithful, is homosexuality a sin like murder or stealing or was it written in a cultural context like slavery, polygamy, how women are seen and treated, etc... Just something to think about as you read the article...

Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?

Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so.

The battle over gay marriage has been waged for more than a decade, but within the last six months—since California legalized gay marriage and then, with a ballot initiative in November, amended its Constitution to prohibit it—the debate has grown into a full-scale war, with religious-rhetoric slinging to match. Not since 1860, when the country's pulpits were full of preachers pronouncing on slavery, pro and con, has one of our basic social (and economic) institutions been so subject to biblical scrutiny. But whereas in the Civil War the traditionalists had their James Henley Thornwell—and the advocates for change, their Henry Ward Beecher—this time the sides are unevenly matched. All the religious rhetoric, it seems, has been on the side of the gay-marriage opponents, who use Scripture as the foundation for their objections.

The argument goes something like this statement, which the Rev. Richard A. Hunter, a United Methodist minister, gave to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in June: "The Bible and Jesus define marriage as between one man and one woman. The church cannot condone or bless same-sex marriages because this stands in opposition to Scripture and our tradition."

To which there are two obvious responses: First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman. And second, as the examples above illustrate, no sensible modern person wants marriage—theirs or anyone else's —to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes. "Marriage" in America refers to two separate things, a religious institution and a civil one, though it is most often enacted as a messy conflation of the two. As a civil institution, marriage offers practical benefits to both partners: contractual rights having to do with taxes; insurance; the care and custody of children; visitation rights; and inheritance. As a religious institution, marriage offers something else: a commitment of both partners before God to love, honor and cherish each other—in sickness and in health, for richer and poorer—in accordance with God's will. In a religious marriage, two people promise to take care of each other, profoundly, the way they believe God cares for them. Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history. In that light, Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married—and a number of excellent reasons why they should.

In the Old Testament, the concept of family is fundamental, but examples of what social conservatives would call "the traditional family" are scarcely to be found. Marriage was critical to the passing along of tradition and history, as well as to maintaining the Jews' precious and fragile monotheism. But as the Barnard University Bible scholar Alan Segal puts it, the arrangement was between "one man and as many women as he could pay for." Social conservatives point to Adam and Eve as evidence for their one man, one woman argument—in particular, this verse from Genesis: "Therefore shall a man leave his mother and father, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh." But as Segal says, if you believe that the Bible was written by men and not handed down in its leather bindings by God, then that verse was written by people for whom polygamy was the way of the world. (The fact that homosexual couples cannot procreate has also been raised as a biblical objection, for didn't God say, "Be fruitful and multiply"? But the Bible authors could never have imagined the brave new world of international adoption and assisted reproductive technology—and besides, heterosexuals who are infertile or past the age of reproducing get married all the time.)

Ozzie and Harriet are nowhere in the New Testament either. The biblical Jesus was—in spite of recent efforts of novelists to paint him otherwise—emphatically unmarried. He preached a radical kind of family, a caring community of believers, whose bond in God superseded all blood ties. Leave your families and follow me, Jesus says in the gospels. There will be no marriage in heaven, he says in Matthew. Jesus never mentions homosexuality, but he roundly condemns divorce (leaving a loophole in some cases for the husbands of unfaithful women).

The apostle Paul echoed the Christian Lord's lack of interest in matters of the flesh. For him, celibacy was the Christian ideal, but family stability was the best alternative. Marry if you must, he told his audiences, but do not get divorced. "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): a wife must not separate from her husband." It probably goes without saying that the phrase "gay marriage" does not appear in the Bible at all.

If the bible doesn't give abundant examples of traditional marriage, then what are the gay-marriage opponents really exercised about? Well, homosexuality, of course—specifically sex between men. Sex between women has never, even in biblical times, raised as much ire. In its entry on "Homosexual Practices," the Anchor Bible Dictionary notes that nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women, "possibly because it did not result in true physical 'union' (by male entry)." The Bible does condemn gay male sex in a handful of passages. Twice Leviticus refers to sex between men as "an abomination" (King James version), but these are throwaway lines in a peculiar text given over to codes for living in the ancient Jewish world, a text that devotes verse after verse to treatments for leprosy, cleanliness rituals for menstruating women and the correct way to sacrifice a goat—or a lamb or a turtle dove. Most of us no longer heed Leviticus on haircuts or blood sacrifices; our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions. Why would we regard its condemnation of homosexuality with more seriousness than we regard its advice, which is far lengthier, on the best price to pay for a slave?

Paul was tough on homosexuality, though recently progressive scholars have argued that his condemnation of men who "were inflamed with lust for one another" (which he calls "a perversion") is really a critique of the worst kind of wickedness: self-delusion, violence, promiscuity and debauchery. In his book "The Arrogance of Nations," the scholar Neil Elliott argues that Paul is referring in this famous passage to the depravity of the Roman emperors, the craven habits of Nero and Caligula, a reference his audience would have grasped instantly. "Paul is not talking about what we call homosexuality at all," Elliott says. "He's talking about a certain group of people who have done everything in this list. We're not dealing with anything like gay love or gay marriage. We're talking about really, really violent people who meet their end and are judged by God." In any case, one might add, Paul argued more strenuously against divorce—and at least half of the Christians in America disregard that teaching.

Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition (and, to talk turkey for a minute, a personal discomfort with gay sex that transcends theological argument). Common prayers and rituals reflect our common practice: the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer describes the participants in a marriage as "the man and the woman." But common practice changes—and for the better, as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. said, "The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice." The Bible endorses slavery, a practice that Americans now universally consider shameful and barbaric. It recommends the death penalty for adulterers (and in Leviticus, for men who have sex with men, for that matter). It provides conceptual shelter for anti-Semites. A mature view of scriptural authority requires us, as we have in the past, to move beyond literalism. The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it's impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours.

Marriage, specifically, has evolved so as to be unrecognizable to the wives of Abraham and Jacob. Monogamy became the norm in the Christian world in the sixth century; husbands' frequent enjoyment of mistresses and prostitutes became taboo by the beginning of the 20th. (In the NEWSWEEK POLL <http://www.newsweek.com/id/172399> , 55 percent of respondents said that married heterosexuals who have sex with someone other than their spouses are more morally objectionable than a gay couple in a committed sexual relationship.) By the mid-19th century, U.S. courts were siding with wives who were the victims of domestic violence, and by the 1970s most states had gotten rid of their "head and master" laws, which gave husbands the right to decide where a family would live and whether a wife would be able to take a job. Today's vision of marriage as a union of equal partners, joined in a relationship both romantic and pragmatic, is, by very recent standards, radical, says Stephanie Coontz, author of "Marriage, a History."

Religious wedding ceremonies have already changed to reflect new conceptions of marriage. Remember when we used to say "man and wife" instead of "husband and wife"? Remember when we stopped using the word "obey"? Even Miss Manners, the voice of tradition and reason, approved in 1997 of that change. "It seems," she wrote, "that dropping 'obey' was a sensible editing of a service that made assumptions about marriage that the society no longer holds."

We cannot look to the Bible as a marriage manual, but we can read it for universal truths as we struggle toward a more just future. The Bible offers inspiration and warning on the subjects of love, marriage, family and community. It speaks eloquently of the crucial role of families in a fair society and the risks we incur to ourselves and our children should we cease trying to bind ourselves together in loving pairs. Gay men like to point to the story of passionate King David and his friend Jonathan, with whom he was "one spirit" and whom he "loved as he loved himself." Conservatives say this is a story about a platonic friendship, but it is also a story about two men who stand up for each other in turbulent times, through violent war and the disapproval of a powerful parent. David rends his clothes at Jonathan's death and, in grieving, writes a song:

I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;You were very dear to me.Your love for me was wonderful,More wonderful than that of women. Here, the Bible praises enduring love between men.

What Jonathan and David did or did not do in privacy is perhaps best left to history and our own imaginations.

In addition to its praise of friendship and its condemnation of divorce, the Bible gives many examples of marriages that defy convention yet benefit the greater community. The Torah discouraged the ancient Hebrews from marrying outside the tribe, yet Moses himself is married to a foreigner, Zipporah. Queen Esther is married to a non-Jew and, according to legend, saves the Jewish people. Rabbi Arthur Waskow, of the Shalom Center in Philadelphia, believes that Judaism thrives through diversity and inclusion. "I don't think Judaism should or ought to want to leave any portion of the human population outside the religious process," he says. "We should not want to leave [homosexuals] outside the sacred tent." The marriage of Joseph and Mary is also unorthodox (to say the least), a case of an unconventional arrangement accepted by society for the common good. The boy needed two human parents, after all.

In the Christian story, the message of acceptance for all is codified. Jesus reaches out to everyone, especially those on the margins, and brings the whole Christian community into his embrace. The Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest and author, cites the story of Jesus revealing himself to the woman at the well— no matter that she had five former husbands and a current boyfriend—as evidence of Christ's all-encompassing love. The great Bible scholar Walter Brueggemann, emeritus professor at Columbia Theological Seminary, quotes the apostle Paul when he looks for biblical support of gay marriage: "There is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ." The religious argument for gay marriage, he adds, "is not generally made with reference to particular texts, but with the general conviction that the Bible is bent toward inclusiveness."

The practice of inclusion, even in defiance of social convention, the reaching out to outcasts, the emphasis on togetherness and community over and against chaos, depravity, indifference—all these biblical values argue for gay marriage. If one is for racial equality and the common nature of humanity, then the values of stability, monogamy and family necessarily follow. Terry Davis is the pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Hartford, Conn., and has been presiding over "holy unions" since 1992. "I'm against promiscuity—love ought to be expressed in committed relationships, not through casual sex, and I think the church should recognize the validity of committed same-sex relationships," he says.

Still, very few Jewish or Christian denominations do officially endorse gay marriage, even in the states where it is legal. The practice varies by region, by church or synagogue, even by cleric. More progressive denominations—the United Church of Christ, for example—have agreed to support gay marriage. Other denominations and dioceses will do "holy union" or "blessing" ceremonies, but shy away from the word "marriage" because it is politically explosive. So the frustrating, semantic question remains: should gay people be married in the same, sacramental sense that straight people are? I would argue that they should. If we are all God's children, made in his likeness and image, then to deny access to any sacrament based on sexuality is exactly the same thing as denying it based on skin color—and no serious (or even semiserious) person would argue that. People get married "for their mutual joy," explains the Rev. Chloe Breyer, executive director of the Interfaith Center in New York, quoting the Episcopal marriage ceremony. That's what religious people do: care for each other in spite of difficulty, she adds. In marriage, couples grow closer to God: "Being with one another in community is how you love God. That's what marriage is about."

More basic than theology, though, is human need. We want, as Abraham did, to grow old surrounded by friends and family and to be buried at last peacefully among them. We want, as Jesus taught, to love one another for our own good—and, not to be too grandiose about it, for the good of the world. We want our children to grow up in stable homes. What happens in the bedroom, really, has nothing to do with any of this. My friend the priest James Martin says his favorite Scripture relating to the question of homosexuality is Psalm 139, a song that praises the beauty and imperfection in all of us and that glorifies God's knowledge of our most secret selves: "I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made." And then he adds that in his heart he believes that if Jesus were alive today, he would reach out especially to the gays and lesbians among us, for "Jesus does not want people to be lonely and sad." Let the priest's prayer be our own.

What happens at your holiday party, well it just won't stay there

Tis the season to be jolly! Unless your company is not throwing a holiday party - then it sucks for you or maybe it is good for you... Perhaps the lack of a holiday party has ensured that you will keep your job...

For those of you that will be attending a holiday party lets address some does and dont's:

1. Make a conscious decision to limit your alcohol consumption to at most two or three drinks --- depending on the length of the party.

Rewashed Translation: Don't get sloppy drunk and then try to make out with the cute intern or try to grind swing dance with your boss during the early 90's hit, "I like big butts!" If you are taking note of this, there are people right now talking about how drunk you will be getting what you will be doing... Bets are being placed, it is time to disappoint...

2. Sexual Harassment Laws are NOT suspended during holiday parties.

Rewashed Translation: Sexual Harassment Laws are NOT suspended during holiday parties. This falls hand in hand with not getting drunk. The kids call it liquid courage for a reason. You have one to many flaming doctor pepper shots and the next thought in your head - making out with your boss is a good idea, trust me its not... Best to trust me now...

3. Dress tastefully and conservatively. Do not be under-dressed. Do not wear anything too flashy, or worse, too revealing.

Rewashed Translation: This for you ladies and the word to avoid when someone is commenting on your low cut, bedazzled dress is SNUG... I would also avoid the term muffin top. And another note - keep the twins put away.

I would be remissed if I did not get you a recap of the Etnies Adidas Holiday Party - the recap is from Brenda, PR for Etnies...

Okay, so I finally made it back to the hotel in one piece.Here's the stats:When we hit two hours of open bar as planned, we were at $1100. But of course, the party was still lively, so my fearless crazy drunken leader Don kept the free PBR bar flowing for an extra 4 hours, plus added over 100 shots of liquor (not to mention all of the drinks everyone else paid for on their own - I didn't even ask the bar for those stats). Total drink tab turned out to be right under $3,000 with the extra hours. Not bad.1,200 PBR 16 oz. tall boys in a can were served.

I counted 6 employees of Adidas, about 20 Nike employees and these really nice guys from Yahoo who showed up because they just found out that their Christmas party was cancelled, so they wanted to join ours. Overall through the night, we rough counted about 250 people, mostly a big crew from the Portland skate scene and a handful from their "hipster" scene. I tried to talk with different people from all crowds and it sounded like on the corporate side, they said internally that people wanted to come, but were scared to show up and get in trouble with their company. People wanted to check it out for themselves to find out if we were really going to do it.

We handed out "corporate gifts" which were coffee mugs with Santa on a Skateboard and it says "Etnies believes in Santa...HUGE hit! We did three drawings for free product (Etnies backpack, t-shirt, hat and shoe gift certificate).

It was a very fun event, we're all happy that we did it for Adidas...everyone who showed up had a great time and said it was the buzz of the town. A big Merry Christmas and a Happy Holiday to Adidas employees...we hope those who attended from their company had a good time and will take back our greetings to them. Oh yeah, we also had a special appearance by Barak Obama..

Good clean living - tis the season to be jolly... Are you jolly???

2008 - Men on a Mission Calendar

2009 is right around the corner and that means one thing - good, bad, indifferent it is calendar time! Perhaps a new desktop calendar with big squares at each date so you can write in key pieces of information... Maybe a cute dog or cat calendar... How about an inspirational calendar - you can start each day off with quote that will inspire you and the others you share the lame quote with... But if you play your cards right and search ebay you may just land the holy grail of calendars, the Mormon Boys - "Men on a Mission" calendar.

The contents of the calendar are not lured (the Men on a Mission calendar does show the men shirtless - so that may be lured for the Mormon Church) but the launch of the calendar itself have caused some serious controversy.... the guy who launched the calendar has been kicked out of the Mormon Church and BYU has taken away his college diploma.... really??

I have been "asked" to leave a religious institution before. My actions on campus and off campus did represent the college or the colleges code of conduct. But my credits were never dismissed... that seems a bit harsh, especially since I paid money for those credits.

That is not the case at BYU - if you get kicked out the church and have been a student at BYU then I guess they can take away your college credits (officially BYU has put his college credits on hold). Before actions from BYU, the church took the following action - Hardy lost his membership for conduct unbecoming a member, charges rooted in his failure to pay tithing, a lapse of other obligations and the production of the 2008 "Men on a Mission" calendar.

My dear friend Brett L, notified me of this news story and we started discussing what the conversation would be like if the small private religious school we attended tried to take away or put on "hold" our college credits/diploma....

First - Hardy was not available for comment on this story, really guy? Brett and I would have held a press conference - I am talking a global feel to this, a full blown PR campaign and the "beep" button guy better be ready cause some graphic language is going to be dropped like a lead balloon on the microphones...

Second, you can have by diploma but I want my money back sucka! Also, I don't know you man so we are doing the trade on camera - check for diploma... that is how I role. I see you has a back stabbing gangsta so we are doing this in a well lit Holiday Inn ballroom with TV and print press people there to watch...

Finally, I am taking some people with me... I am hiring a private investigator and I am hunting down everyone one at BYU. You better be on your best behavior for the next 50 years. The money you refunded me will go towards shutting your school down... That is h0w I role. I am out of a diploma and church - vengeance is MINE, sayeth me... And the check book allows this to happen...

On a side note - how can any person or business now take a degree from BYU seriously? They can revoke your credits or put them on hold based on an infraction with the church - come on BYU. I get the fact that all things Mormon are tied at the hip - that written - you either have to play in the real college world or the Mormon/Utah - world where the degree is only applicable in Utah...

Just in case you missed it:

Tonight in Portland, ORE Etnies will be throwing the Adidas employees a holiday party... I know the Etnies people, even if Adidas boycotts the party will still be money!

Happy Monday