Archive for November 12th, 2008


just read this fantastic post on the absurdity of prop 8 over at a slacktivist.

here’s a snippet:

This was a ballot measure attempting to clarify the meaning of the state’s constitution, restricting the application of certain “rights” to only certain Californians and not to others.

The word rights is in scare quotes there necessarily because that word cannot be made to do what Californians are trying to make it do there. Rights, by definition, are rights for all. If a “right” exists for me, but not for thee, then it isn’t really a right at all, merely a privilege.

And please note that this is what has happened here. For all the scaremongering “defense of marriage” language used by supporters of Proposition 8, the passage of this silly measure actually dealt the institution a severe blow. What had been a right is now only a privilege — a privilege that the state is free to withhold as it sees fit. Yielding that kind of power to the state is not the sort of thing that a free people ought to be doing if they wish to remain a free people.

Read Full Post »

my dear friend, sarah wrote a song about 10 years ago which was based on psalm 139. she called it “love can overcome estrangement”, but (if i remember correctly) the powers-that-be at her label thought that was a little too…vague (?) for a “christian” song. and so, for all intents and purposes, it was called “psalm 139”.

it was a really, really great song in homage to a wonderful psalm: dear god, you know me. you’ve made me become me. what else is there?

that song found its way into the shuffle of my daily commute this morning. and its real title flashed through my head. and i thought of my pastor’s wife finding me on facebook.

my friend lisa wrote this comment on my previous post:

I wish I knew what to write. I keep thinking for some reason, of my father. I remember coming to the realization (and choosing to believe it) that he was doing the best with what he had. It sounds, perhaps, that your pastor’s wife is doing the same. It doesn’t mean it’s not hurtful, though.

moments after i finished writing here the other day, my pastor’s wife chatted me on fb. she was responding to my reply to her email, in which i said that i spent a lot of my life fearing rejection from people i loved if i told my truth. (how’s that for a poorly constructed sentence. i am so totally giving sarah palin a run for her money, like also as well.) her chat went something like this: i would never reject you. you are precious, and your daughter is precious.

i thanked her for her words, because i know she means them. we chitchatted a moment more, and then she had to go. she said she loved me. i said i loved her.

who knows where the conversation will go from here. i know without a doubt that she will pray for my deliverance from teh ghey, that my family will be seen as within the clutch of the devil. her church, in which i spent eight years, is all about the prayer circles, hands outstretched to god, pleading loudly for lost souls. it sickens my heart to know that my name will now likely echo throughout the sanctuary. and yet, if anything can overcome this kind of estrangement, it’s love.

as h said, when i relayed my sadness about being prayed for in such a way: simply accept the love-filled energy of the prayer itself. ultimately, it is my blessing and health that is being prayed for, and who does not want to receive that? i love my h.

non-sequitur, because i need a segue before gracing you with a photo of the judelet…

the child was up last night. a lot. whiny-sad. maybe it was teeth. maybe it was belly. we covered bases with teething tablets and gripe water. in the end, she spent most of the night snuggled up between us, which means not-so-quality sleep for me. blargh. and yet, this was the good morning photo sent to me at work:

playing innocent after keeping us up all night.

total innocence.

Read Full Post »