A Step in Faith

Newsweek Web Exclusive

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

SPONSORED BY

During the past four years I have looked into the faces of those I once caused harm to with religion-based bigotry and prejudice. And while I may have never inflicted a physical blow, I know today that my words indeed caused deep wounds—perhaps at some point deeper than I care to dwell upon.

They are the faces of individuals like young Sean Kennedy, who died in Greenville, S.C., in 2007 after being struck by a person who considered Sean a "faggot"; Pat and Lynn Mulder of Auburndale, Fla., whose gay son also died as a result of a hate crime; Jared Horsford of Texas who carved derogatory words into his flesh because he thought it would help control the demon he was told lived there; Nicholas White who was relentlessly berated by fellow 4-H peers at camp this summer as other 4-H campers stood behind the tormentors in silence; or the mother I met recently in North Carolina who grieved over her dead son—a child that had been rejected because he was gay and thought peace could only come through suicide.

There are many, many others I have met in my work with Faith in America, as we try to bring awareness and understanding to the pain and trauma caused to LGBT people, especially youth, when church teaching is misused to justify and promote a societal climate of rejection, condemnation, and discrimination. This environment fosters suicide, hate crimes, an epidemic of antigay bullying in our schools against all kinds of children gay and straight, legal workplace discrimination against LGBT citizens in 20 states, military service members forced to serve in silence or discharged for being honest about who they are, lesbian and gay parents unable to protect their children without the legal structure of federally recognized civil marriage, and lesbian and gay couples unable to provide security for their partners in the absence of federally recognized civil marriage. This is what we march for on Oct. 11 and every day. Every person coming to Washington—whether they are religious or not—does share one faith, and that is faith in America. We can and must do better. As the progress of history has shown, Americans will prove themselves able to see beyond religion-based bigotry to the promises of equal treatment for all. Those who use religion-based bigotry to persecute and discriminate against LGBT people are on the wrong side of history, just as they were with slavery, interracial marriage, the treatment of women, and so many other issues.

I remember the first time I met Sean Kennedy's mother, Elke, sitting in her family's living room just months after she had lost her precious son as the result of a senseless and hate-filled act of violence. And I will never forget that momentary look on her face when I explained to her that I once was someone whose attitude had helped perpetuate the societal climate in which her son lived and died. It was a moment in which I realized the depths of the wounds I may have inflicted upon a gay teen contemplating suicide or a perpetrator looking to justify hate violence. It is a moment that commands me to continue to march, to speak out, and help others experience the spiritual blessing that comes from unshackling the chains of religion-based bigotry and prejudice.

Brent Childers is the executive director of Faith in America. After changing his views on homosexuality, he left the Southern Baptist Church and now attends both a local Pentacostal and a nondenominational church in Hickory, N.C.

« Prev Page

Member Comments

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: merltd @ 11/19/2009 12:35:58 PM

First, this is not my rule; it is how government balances individual liberties and community safety. Second, roller coaster riding and homosexual behavior do not have the same level and magnitude of risk. The number of individuals that are injured or killed from roller coasters is very small especially compared to the number of individuals that participate. If that ratio increases, the government can step in and restrict or eliminate this activity. Homosexual activities are injuring individuals at a much greater ratio. If the risks are so manageable, why are the injuries so prevalent? I am not ignoring risk management; I just have not seen any significant statistics to show it is working.

As for benefits, I have seen nothing to indicate that a significant number of homosexual relationships last long enough to raise children, which adds more injury to the adopted children. Just living healthier and longer can help raise much more revenue for the state.

And yes this is about redefining marriage. If I show up to get a license but do not meet the requirements, I must change my qualifications or change the requirements. Changing the requirements would require convincing evidence that the change is not harmful or has benefits that out weigh the risks. And in a democratic government, the redefining of those qualifications must be accepted by the majority.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: bkrummel @ 11/16/2009 1:19:32 PM

Note that part of my concern with your cost/benefit analysis is that you seem to do the following. Since you and most people drive, you argue that driving is okay and use risk management in your justification. As for gay marriage, since only a minority of the population is gay, you can argue that gay marriage does not benefit a majority of society. You also seem to ignore any means of risk management with regard to homosexual behavior. This leads to a tyranny of the majority. Also, you should consistently acknowledge the risk management, not ignore it when it is inconvenient for your argument.

Also note that I meant to say that some gay people ARE married.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: bkrummel @ 11/16/2009 1:00:41 PM

You're monster barring. You are adding this exception to the rule involving the cost/benefits to society so that driving becomes okay and certain sexual behaviors are not okay according to your rule.

You may have explained driving and flying, but you hardly explained leisure activities such as skydiving, scuba diving, and riding on amusement park rides. These activities require safety equipment and are unnatural and they only seem to benefit the individual, not society, by providing for temporary pleasure. Why aren't you moving to ban skydiving, scuba diving, and rollercosters? I sure hope you don't engage in any such behavior!

How do you do this calculus of cost/benefit analysis for "unnatural activities"? Do you factor one's ability to manage risk into your calculus? If you don't factor risk management in, then clearly the risk of untrained, unprotected drivers dying in accidents vastly outweigh any benefit automobiles might provide. If you do factor in risk management, then sexual behaviors, for which the risk can be minimized, should be of little concern. Also, how do you avoid this calculus from being a means of promoting activities you find utility in and rejecting activities you neither do nor like?

As for gay marriage itself, it does benefit society, or at least a portion of society. It provides stability and legal support for long term homosexual relationships. It provides homes for children, in particular adopted children. There are plenty of children who need adopting into homes. As a side benefit, gay marriage could help raise revenue for states. As for the risk and harm to society, the only thing you mentioned of any substance is diseases resulting from homosexual sexual behaviors. I hardly think that gay men having anal sex with condoms is an excessive harm to society, though you persistently disagree. We will have to agree to disagree on this point, though I find your rational behind it to be disappointing.

As for your claim that we are "redefining marriage", no we aren't. Gay couples are already in long term relationships that they regard as marriage. These gay people ARE marriage, by at least any reasonable definition of marriage that isn't explicitly trying to ban homosexuals. This isn't about redefining marriage, this is about legal recognition for what already is marriage.