Right on, Padre! I wonder how it is that all of these neo-cons and homophobes who continually quote scripture as a valid reason to discriminate and spread messages of hate against gays don't see this? On a message board I frequent, they use the term "Buffet Christian," and I find it to be right on, also. Pick and choose, pass over the things that aren't appealing. What hypocrisy. And, isn't that, in and of itself, a sin of choice?
To the Editor,
Re: Anti-Gay Group Dumps Bank
Focus on the Family's decision to sever their relationship with Wells-Fargo Bank raises an interesting question: the Book of Leviticus also forbids lending or borrowing of money at interest.
Presumably Focus on the Family had no qualms about depositing their monies in interest-bearing checking and savings accounts, as well as other interest-bearing instruments.
Is there an edition of the Holy Bible that I'm not aware of that differentiates between the sin of usury and the sin of sodomy?
How is it then, absent such an edition, that Focus on the Family roundly condemns the latter, and practices the former?
The Rev'd. Father Raymond H. Clark
Superior (retired)
The Community of the Resurrection
San Diego California
I got a phone call Friday from Blue Cross/Blue Shield regarding my health insurance plan. The customer care representative said there was some "confusion" and asked me who I wanted covered. I told her me, of course, Lisa G. and Joseph M. She asked for Joe's date of birth and I gave it to her. *slight pause* Conversation continued as follows:
Rep: Oh, I see the problem. You inadvertently checked "spouse"
for Lisa.
Me: That's because she is my spouse.
We were legally married in Canada.
*pregnant pause*
Rep: Oh, well we don't recognize that in New York State.
Me: That's not what the state's Attorney General Elliott Spitzer
says.
*longer pregnant pause*
Rep: Oh, well the computer won't take it that way.
Me: Which means that the computer was deliberately programmed to
discriminate then, right?
*pause* *long sigh*
Rep: We'll have to put her into the system as your domestic
partner.
Me: Whatever.
I figure I messed with her head and ruined her day enough. But when you think about it, if they put Lisa into the computer as my spouse, the computer wouldn't accept it because it was a same-sex marriage? If that's the case, then it was deliberately programmed in to not accept same sex couples. Of course, you could make a valid argument that it was necessary to do that so that flags and bells and sirens would go off if John Jones tried to add his kid brother who refuses to get a job and would rather mooch off big brother onto his policy. Or a roommate with no legal standing, etc. I understand all that. But there's a storm a-brewin' and they're going to have to re-think that programming.
In the meantime, we got our new insurance cards in the mail yesterday showing coverage for Pat, Joe and Lisa (in that order). Lisa was a bit confused as to why her name wasn't on the policy. I told her it's because *I* am the sponsor of the policy. She's never been a "dependent" or spouse before and I think she thought it should have been in both our names. All that aside, though, we were both stoked about this small victory. Our plan becomes effective January 1.
Found this fantastic sculpture on sale at eBay but, alas, it's way out of my price range. It's still for sale for the next 4 days if you're interested:
