|
"Confidence, like art,
never comes
from having all the
answers;
it comes from being open to
all the questions."
-----anon.
Graphic © 1990
Christa Landon
This
is the Forum at The Pagan Institute.
Here you'll find a variety of opinions,
because it is the PAGAN INSTITUTE'S policy to support the free and
responsible search for truth and meaning.
The opinions expressed here are those of the authors, and not
necessarily those of the editor, The Pagan Institute, CUUPS, or The
Goddess.
Your response is invited.
Where response is great enough, continuing discussions will receive
their own page. Don't miss Conservative Pagan Forum, our
newest page.
If
you resort to ad hominem attacks, expect a form letter rejection
notice with a meta-discussion on logical fallacies and psychological
projection. Remember, this is the arguments room, not abuse. For
abuse you want alt.flame or witchwars.org
|
|
|
"When Communism invades a community, it destroys free enterprise by
monopolizing goods, services, and employment.
It destroys free enterprise by creating a monopoly which provides food,
clothing and other goods once supplied by privately owned small
businesses. The people in turn are forced to work for that monopoly at a
wage at or near poverty. Their choices are limited to the cheaply made
goods provided by other communist manufacturers through their employer.
These products are purchased by their low wage earnings thereby giving the
people no chance to succeed. The only ones who profit are the few lucky
leaders who apply a miniscule fraction of their earnings to their
propaganda machine which encourages people that submitting to their system
is the Patriotic thing to do.
Wait, did I say Communism? I meant WalMart."
WalMart - Always low wages. Always.
Don't let our Troops die for WalMart.
Free Enterprise depends on you Boycotting WalMart.
Visit KC at http://xnmcguire.iuma.com/
|
| On Complacency: News & Editorial |
WASHINGTON
- After a generation of involvement on the political scene, religious
conservatives say they may finally have come into their own.
With the re-election of President Bush and a galvanized grass-roots
movement, evangelical Christian leaders are confidently predicting the
advance of their social agenda."
"But Bush was returned to office Tuesday on the wings of evangelicals.
Three out of four white voters who described themselves as evangelicals or
born-again Christians voted for Bush, according to an exit poll of more
than 13,000 voters conducted for the Associated Press and the television
networks. That represented about one-fifth of all voters.
"Before our strength was a question mark," said Weyrich. "Now it's an
exclamation point."
Religious conservatives have a wish list of items they hope Bush and a
Republican-dominated Congress will address, including legislative bans on
same-sex marriage, continuing efforts to limit abortion and appointment of
judges who do not meet their definition of "activist."
Overcoming past stages of political apathy, evangelicals are now
energized, their leaders say - not just at the voting booth, but for
future action to let the political powers know they have certain
expectations."
"Corwin Smidt, director of the Henry Institute for the Study of
Christianity and Politics at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, MI, said
evangelicals already have the ear of Republicans but now Democrats may
begin to pay more attention to them."
"The Rev. Jerry Falwell, chancellor of Liberty University in Lynchburg,
VA, and co-founder of the Moral Majority, wouldn't predict demands for
political payback from the Bush administration.
He did say [evangelical Christian] complacency is not an option." |
Greenviews: On Complacency
by Lowell McFarland
Complacency may not be an option with evangelical Christians but it
appears to be the option of choice for Pagans. As a religion, Pagans
seem to be alone in this disunited complacency among all other religions
in America. Most all other moderate religious leaders and religions are
now congressing to assess this stunning extremist religious takeover.
While the majority of evangelical Christian ministers were subtly, or
not so subtly, preaching that "...God has finally sent America a
president..." and distributing millions of pamphlets boasting of Bush's
evangelical religiosity, Pagans were preaching that we should not get
political. Even now, as evangelical Christian leaders are engraving
their wish lists to get all the political paybacks they worked for,
Pagans are asking that their members be nice and don't argue or to take
their political comments off-list.
Evangelical Christians, once a small,
disorganized and powerless group, publicly announced their grandiose
takeover intentions, organized, ORGANIZED, ORGANIZED, and then organized
more, and FINALLY SUCCEEDED grandly. In a classic case of extremists allying themselves against complacent
(wishy-washy?) disunited, tolerant and enlightened groups, religious
extremists allied themselves with economic extremists (very rich people
and corporations who were war, health and energy profiteering) and a
variety of racists, misogynists, and jingoists, to take control of
America. In the same time, Pagans seemed to find every excuse NOT to
organize, NOT to congress, NOT to enlist national Pagan spokespeople,
NOT to become politically active, NOT to alert their members to the
obvious activities of evangelical Christians and their
religious/political agenda and NOT to fundraise to pay for standard and
growing needs of the Pagan community.
While religious leaders from most all of America's religions have
regularly visited the White House, and achieved results as well as their
photographs with the Presidents, we do not know of any Pagan leaders who
have visited the White House in the last 100 years!
Back then environmentalists John Muir and J. Horace McFarland visited
Presidents Taft, Roosevelt and Wilson in the first 1900's. Muir and
McFarland's interaction with the American presidents brought America our
National Park Service and many other environmental firsts--which are now
lauded worldwide.
As Pagans, our history shows that we fared badly under various forms of
enforced, virulent state-monotheism, especially when we stayed
complacent or tribally disunited in the face of looming control-freak
behavior by religious extremists who took control of the government.
We are proud of the many, many Pagans who fought and voted for tolerance
and better lives for all.
In contrast to apolitical American Pagans, European Pagans have
organized and become very political when needed: British Pagans fought
the government, got Stonehenge opened again and can now conduct sacred
rites at Stonehenge and several other ancient Pagan megaliths; European
Pagans joined with others to defeat Christian efforts to include a
statement declaring "Christian roots" to Europe in the new European
Union Constitution; European Pagans spearheaded successful efforts to
make the 2004 Olympics as Pagan as possible in their ancient Pagan home
in Greece;
Brittany/Bretagne French Pagans joined others to defeat French laws that
made French parents name all children with French Christian names; Irish
Pagans are fighting their government to better preserve the ancient
Pagan sites and megaliths; Hellenic Greek Pagans are fighting their
government (and the Orthodox Christian Church) to allow them to conduct
Pagan rites at ancient Greek Pagan sites; Pagans in other European
countries are fighting their governments for official recognition and
religious aboriginal acknowledgement.
Obviously, because we American Pagans did not even try to effect the
agenda, the agenda of America, and perhaps the agenda for many American
Pagans, will be set by others, probably by organized and gloating
evangelical Christians.
Obviously still, the lessons learned from these last two presidential
elections are that being complacent or wishy-washy is not beneficial to
either presidential candidates nor Pagans.
We now need to form overdue Pagan national organizations and join our
tribes when necessary, so that we can continue the good fight.
NOTE: Moderate Christians as well as other religions, including Atheists
and secularists, are very concerned about the apparent intrusive action
of fundamentalists in this election and are
convening their national leaders to discuss all of the ramifications.
The following article was sent by Presbyterian News from the Religious
News Service.
This article is reposted relative to 17 USC Section 107.
Loch Sloy!
Tuan Today
"Tuan MacCarrill/MacParthalon, forever the Celtic story!"
Lowell McFarland <lowell@optonline.net>
|
|
We
want
YOUR
2 cents
Send your reasoned arguments, to the Editor.
|
Dear friends of freedom, life,
and peace,
O.k. So Now What?
Donna Henes
We are baffled. We are frustrated. We are
disgusted. We are angry. And, yes, we are scared. But I can't see that any
of these attitudes can help us much, either in our personal spiritual
growth or in our attempts to change the political climate of our country.
Our job today is exactly what it has been all along. We need to steady and
center ourselves in our own beliefs and values. We need to reach out in
friendship and compassion to those folks around us who may or may not
agree with us. We need to walk our talk and lead exemplary lives. And most
important, we need keep hope and faith and trust alive in our hearts.
Now is the time to roll up our sleeves and prepare for the long haul. So
many of us became politicized and active in these past few pre-election
months. This earnest passion for positive change is precisely where we
must begin. We cannot allow ourselves to go back to sleep, apathetic and
dormant until six months before the next election. We have to realize that we are now engaged in training for a huge
marathon. Sprinters need not apply.
From now on we must be ever vigilant and allow no injustice, no
aggression, no display of disrespect to pass without a loud protest. We
must pay attention and ethically respond to the feelings, needs, fears,
and desires of others as well as the planet that supports us all. We must
be the early responders.
So let's spend this
evening bemoaning our fate by crying in our beer, eating too much ice
cream, doing yoga, having sex, doing whatever it is that will make us feel
better for the moment. And then in the morning, let us awaken to the dawn
of a new day, a new era, a new way of being in the world. This is just the
beginning.
With ultimate blessings of peace,
xxMama Donna
* (c) Permission is granted to copy, reproduce, re-print or
promulgate in any manner this copyrighted material so long as correct
attribution and contact information is included.
******************************* Donna Henes, Urban Shaman,
is a contemporary ceremonialist specializing in multi-cultural ritual celebration of
the cycles of the seasons and the seasons of our lives.
She is the author of The Queen of My
Self, The Moon Watcher's Companion, Celestially Auspicious Occasions, and Dressing Our Wounds In Warm Clothes, as well as the CD, Reverence To Her: Mythology, The
Matriarchy & Me. She is also the editor and publisher of the highly
acclaimed quarterly journal,
Always In Season: Living In Sync with
the Cycles.
For further information, a list of
services and publications, a calendar of upcoming events and a complimentary issue
of Always in Season: Living in Sync with the Cycles. contact:
MAMA DONNA'S TEA GARDEN AND HEALING HAVEN
PO Box 380403
Exotic Brooklyn, NY 11238-0403
Phone: 718-857-1343 NOTE NEW NUMBER
Email: CityShaman@aol.com
http://www.DonnaHenes.net
http://www.TheQueenofMySelf.com |
THE
REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLICAN & DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES
AS SACRED
POLARITIES
By: Rosemarie Taylor-Perry,
Author: "The God Who
Comes; Dionysian Mysteries Revisited."
The universe runs on polarity: Good times and bad times weave together
into the tale of a life; day follows night without pause; male and
female come together and new life and growth occur; and, as Pagans, we
recognize that life and death are merely alternating loops in a single
never ending spiral. This is how the Lords and Ladies we call gods
-- also known in the Hellene tradition as "The Shining Ones"
-- have arranged the cosmos in which we live.
Which is why, as a conservative Pagan, I become frustrated -- okay,
let's be honest; I'm human, and I become both hurt and angry -- when,
upon occasion, those liberal Pagans I'd like to consider real friends
absolutely erase me, my husband, and my wonderful stepdaughter from
their lives, when they learn my political party. Not even my
beliefs, just the letter on my voter's registration card. The
latest case of this is a lady and her companion whom we'd known, and
dearly loved, for
five years. No sort of rapproachment, inquiry, gift, or show of
concern by any of us now elicits any response from these folks -- we've
simply ceased to exist.
Okay, so this is some sort of psychological issue within the
personalities of these two women. But, we still love(d?!) them.
And, it still hurts.
I'd like to call some sort of truce within the Pagan population
regarding this issue. Anything else is inane. Have we, as a
society, forgotten how to "agree to disagree", and still
remain civil? Have we,
as Pagans, forgotten that a vibrant universe runs on polarity, not
similitude?
As Americans, we've obviously forgotten that, without both Democratic
and Republican processes within our government, America as we know it
would not -- and could not! -- exist, punditry and unstatesmanlike
political behavior notwithstanding.
The Democratic process comes to us from Periclean Athens (roughly
600-400BCE). In this system, citizens -- which Athens determined
by matrilineal derivation (only the sons of Athenian women were
considered Athenians), enrollment and service in the army, and ownership
of land via marriage to a woman of Athenian descent 1 -- voted on all issues of import to the
city. Majority rule is the hallmark of a Democracy. The
downside of this system is that minority viewpoint is of no consequence
in the crafting of any law, and majority view is considered law even if
that view imposes tyranny. 2
The representative Republican process was invented in Rome (roughly
600BCE to 50CE). In this system, citizens -- any male landowner
over a certain age, who had served in the military 3 -- elected men of the Equestrian or high class (as determined both by
elite birth and high
fiscal solvency) who would present a spectrum of both majority and
minority concerns to one another, and thereby rule by reaching consensus
between considered viewpoints. This method decays when the elite
run out of money, and any given group of citizens realize that they can
"buy" themselves a Senator. The Roman Republic fell,
furthermore, because it was the Equestrian Senatorial class that
commanded the Roman army: Certain Senators, in the pay of certain
citizens, gained generalship of large portions of the army, plunging
first Rome then the whole of the Italian peninsula into nearly a century
of civil war, begun by the Gracchi and ended only by the rule of the
Caesars. 4
America's Founders were privileged children of the final, Romantic era
of the Renaissance, that era which brushed over a millennia of dust and
rubble off of Pagan art, literature, law, mathematics, science, history,
and medicine, and gazed upon it in awe. It is the works of our
Pagan, Greco-Roman ancestors that inspired giants such as Galileo, Van
Liewenhoek, Lister, Pasteur, Titian, Hamilton, Jefferson, and many
others; all the great buildings of Washington, D.C., are built on
ancient Greco-Roman lines -- save for the Washington monument, which is
a modern rendition of the obelisk style of monument favored by the
ancient Egyptians.
The Founders read
and understood the works of ancient Pagan politicians, historians,and
philosophers, and those works resonated in their minds. Conservative Christians like to say that America is a Christian country,
and though it is true that many modern Amercans and most Founders are
and were Christian, American
government as we know it is founded upon a wholly Pagan system, which is
reflected in everyday American life -- from Pagan art and architecture,
to the symbols chosen to represent our country (as may be noted on our
currency), to the process of vote, veto, and judgement by jury. 5
However, the Founders also saw the
flaws in the Democratic and representative Republican systems as
practiced by the Greeks and Romans. It took many years and numerous
revisions in plan, but it was decided that the most stable -- yet the
most dynamic -- system could be created
by combining both systems, as well as creating not just a voting public
and a Senate, but further branches of government into which the running
of the country could be split in
such a way that no one part of the whole could amass too much power (this, by the way, is why conservatives tend to look askance at the
creation of laws and bureaucracies that extend the reach of any branch
of government!)
Along the same lines, I feel that it is important to the health of our
country to have political parties in polarity. This being said,
I'm stymied at the attitude taken by some individuals, which seems to
proclaim that only one particular political ideology -- be it part of
liberalism, or part of conservatism, or something else entirely -- is
the only "correct" way, and that any other set of beliefs acts
to turn one's would-be friends into social untouchables. I'm
afraid I have to respond to that sort of thinking the way the American
general in the Battle of the Bulge responded to the German general who
demanded his surrender:
NUTS!!!
We are not gods; we cannot see the beginning, end, or meaning of all
things. But the gods have given us a place where our views and
beliefs can be spoken and heard without fear of death (something that
was a very real possibility pretty much everywhere for most of recorded
history,
and which still is in certain parts of the world); where we can begin to
reclaim the spiritual traditions of our ancestors, if that is what we
desire. As a conservative Pagan (specifically, an Hellenic
Reconstructionist), I am thankful for this opportunity, and for this
country. I'm sad that some might choose to avoid me because of my
political (or religious) beliefs. Nevertheless, if that is their
choice, then that is their right, and I would not have it taken from
them for any reason, regardless of how sad, hurt, frustrated, or
offended I might be.
FOOTNOTES:
1. Hignett, "A History of the Athenian
Constitution to the End of the Fifth Century BC" pages 343-347 /
Loraux, "The Invention of Athens" pages 31-39/ Taylor-Perry,
"The God Who Comes..." pages 40-44 / Winkler and Zeitlin, "Nothing to
do with Dionysos: Athenian Drama in its Social Context" pages
195-196.
2. Hignett, "A History of the Athenian
Constitution..." passim.
3. Goldsworthy, "The Complete Roman
Army" pages 102-103, 114.
4. Hildinger, "Swords Against the Senate:
The Rise of the Roman Army and the Fall of the Republic" passim.
5. Jones and Pennick, "Pagan Europe"
pages 189-204.
|
|
Special
Feature on Polyamory:
The practice, state or ability of having more than one sexual loving
relationship
at the same time, with the full knowledge and consent of all partners
involved."
Faithful Polyamory (a Unitarian Universalist sermon)
Hello, I'm Elise Matthesen; I'm bisexual,
polyamorous, and a member of this congregation.
I hope you'll forgive me if I'm a little worn-out and grumpy -- and
maybe tearful -- today, but it's been a big week. I got home on Monday
night from a visit with the chosen family of one of my partners, and
when my other partner picked us up at the airport, he said, "Your
sister says to call her as soon as you can. It's urgent."
It was. The mother of my closest high school friend had died
unexpectedly, and my sister wanted to tell me, and to make
arrangements with me for getting to the funeral, which was back home in
southeastern Wisconsin. I got back last night at Midnight.
I felt it was especially important to be with my friend for this funeral
because her father died just a few months ago, after a long, difficult
illness. Her mom, as my sister pointed out, was one of the best mothers
we knew; she had lots of love for her kids, and enough to share with the
numerous friends of her offspring who came through the house. My friend
and her husband were in the process of leaving their home and jobs in
order to move in with my friend's mother and take care of her and be
with her, but it wasn't to be.
One of the other reasons I really wanted to be there was that my friend
is a very wonderful, gentle, and loving person. She was one of the
people who supported me when I came out as bisexual a quarter-century
ago. And when, years afterwards, I went back to tell her, "You know
all those years ago in high school? I, um, I think I was in love with
you," her response was one of the most thoughtful I've ever heard
of. She sat there for a minute, considering, and then she looked me
square in the eye and said, "Thank you." Which was perfect --
I wasn't asking her to do anything about it, other than to know how much
I cared about her. I didn't tell her way back in high school, because I
wasn't ripe to say it yet, although I was able to say that I was
bisexual, once I found out there was a word for it.
When I worked the night shift at the canning factory, one of my
co-workers was a strong, graceful, young Spanish-speaking migrant
worker. One night on break, as we watched the mist rise off the river
behind the factory, he asked me, "Do you think it's wrong for a man
to.... you know, to go with another man?"
This wasn't small talk. What could I say? The church I was raised in
called homosexuality an abomination. I knew they meant me, too -- and I
didn't think they'd give me a discount on eternal damnation for being
bisexual. (Bashers haven't offered to beat only half of me up, either.
Bigots are generous with their abuse; in fact, they're much more
inclusive than our allies, sometimes.)
I knew what I was told in church and Christian day school.... and I knew
what was in my heart and mind. I had pondered the idea "God is
Love" a lot -- especially when the adults around me seemed to be
under the impression that God was Shaming and Threatening. But I knew
the feelings inside me were good; they were like morning reflecting in
raindrops on the phlox in the flowerbed. Like how the mint fields
smelled at harvest time. All the places I had been taught to see God's
handiwork were places of wonder and intricacy and life. It seemed to me
then that God was impossible *not* to love... and by my young logic,
following love with integrity and whole-heartedness was a way to get
closer *to* God.
I didn't say all this to my co-worker. I said, "Do they treat you
good?"
He froze, like a rabbit not sure whether to run yet.
"Are they nice to you?"
He shook his head. I don't remember his words, but I remember the pang
when I realized he thought "going with men" and being treated
badly were inextricably linked.
"Oh, honey," I said, "I think it's okay to love men,
women, whatever, but hang on and wait for the ones who treat you nice,
okay? Don't go with the ones who are mean to you."
If God is Love, then love can be a pathway to God -- but you gotta hang
on and wait for the ones who treat you nice. And you gotta treat *them*
nice, too -- and you've got to follow your pathway with integrity.
If you missed the controversy in the UU magazine, "poly" means
several (or many, though one person's many is another person's few);
"amory" means "love" -- so, "many loves,"
or "several loves." As the one I'm married to and I describe
it sometimes, "we're very faithful; we're just not
monogamous."
I am proudly -- and gratefully -- involved in two long-term partnerships
and one relationship which cheerfully defies
description. For the statistically-minded, these have lasted fifteen
years, eight years, and seven years respectively. I sometimes joke that
I'm "an old boring settled poly person," but I'm happiest with
long-term relationships. I wouldn't be very good at practices like
serial monogamy or trading beloveds like baseball cards.
I have told partners: "The fact that I love you is not
negotiable.*How* I love you is always negotiable."
My feelings bloom inside me -- like that delight in the dew on the
phlox, or my love for my beloveds, or the big deep joy I called
"God." My actions are my choice and my responsibility. I
cannot be rude, hurtful or cruel to one beloved and then claim I was
"only acting out of love" for another. I believe nobody can
build real and lasting happiness at the expense of another -- whether
they're monogamous or polyamorous or celibate.
I won't "proselytize for polyamory," bisexuality or anything
else. I don't get toasters for signing people up- though I did laugh at
the joke that we bisexuals don't get toasters; we get waffle irons. But
seriously, I don't value polyamory, ethically and consensually
practiced, any more highly than monogamy, ethically and consensually
practiced. Or bisexuality over monosexuality. I'm not under some
impression I have the One True Way. I don't believe there *is* One True
Way. I think there are many paths, and that our path is between each of
us, our consciences, our conception of good (or god), and our
beloveds.
I'm glad people are curious about bisexuality and polyamory, but I
wonder why so many questions are about sex. Aren't people curious about
love? Or is sex the thing we can talk about nowadays, and love the
taboo?
Some people think they know what I must mean by "bisexual and
polyamorous." They come up and say, "Oh, I get it -- you're bi
and poly because no one person can meet all your needs, right?"
Wrong. I don't get up in the morning with a checklist of
"relationship needs" and start pushing my cart around doing
comparison shopping. Love and relationships are more about giving, about
the privilege of building something together, of cheering each other on,
or sometimes up. About interdependence -- another word associated with
our UU principles.
The last thing I want to say is about polyamory as opposed to cheating.
(And the way I practice it, polyamory is very *definitely* opposed to
cheating!) Monogamous people who are cheating sometimes pull me aside
and say, "I'm telling you this because I know you'll
understand." Now, how a person like me, who has gone to a lot of
effort to communicate and negotiate early, often, and thoroughly, is
supposed to be a kindred spirit to somebody hoodwinking their trusting
spouse, I haven't a clue. I feel at those moments like a Unitarian
Universalist who's just been told, "Oh, I really admire your
ability to throw all that outdated morality, belief, and ethics stuff
out the window!"
As Thomas Moore said in his book THE CARE OF THE SOUL about the word
"poly" in a different context,
"Some,
without investigating the idea deeply enough, have assumed that this
means that morally anything goes, that there is no code of ethics, and
that whatever happens, happens; but poly means 'several,'
not 'any.'"
May
you have strength, luck, and grace in all your relationships, of
whatever description. Thank you for asking me to speak today. I look
forward to continuing conversation.
Originally
presented at FIRST UNIVERSALIST CHURCH of Minneapolis, as part of the
Gay Pride Sunday Service on 18-JUN-2000 by Elise Matthesen elise@mango.lioness.net
[What follows is the text of the personal reflection I gave as part of
the Pride Sunday service today.]
---------------------
[The preceding is copyright Elise Matthesen, June 2000. Permission to
make one copy for personal use is hereby granted to any individual
reading this, so long as this copyright notice in its entirety is
included in any such copy. Such permission for personal use does *not*
cover republishing this post in any form on any media, including posting
the material on private or public websites or in newsletters, without
written permission from the author and the inclusion of this notice in
its entirety; to request permission to reprint in those circumstances,
please contact elise@lioness.net . Thank you.]
The
more you love, the more you *can* love - and the more intensely
you love. Nor is there any limit on how many you can love.
If a person had time enough, he could love all of that majority
who are decent and just.
-- Robert A. Heinlein
Used
with permission
|
|
Polyamory and Unitarian Universalism
Tuesday,
April 20, 2004
BAY
AREA
Committed to marriage for the masses
Polyamorists say they relate honestly to multiple partners
Don
Lattin, Chronicle Religion Writer
 
Unitarians from Boston to Berkeley have opened another front
in the liberal crusade to expand the definition of marriage
and family in America.
It's the
new polygamy, and according to the Unitarian Universalists for
Polyamory Awareness, their relationships are at least as
ethical as other marriages -- gay or straight.
"Polyamory
is never having to say you've broken up,'' said Sally Amsbury
of Oakland, whose sex and love life openly includes her
husband and two "other significant others," known in
polyamory parlance as "OSOs."
Amsbury
serves on the national board of directors of the Unitarian
Universalist organization, which defines polyamory as
"the philosophy and practice of loving or relating
intimately to more than one other person at a time with
honesty and integrity.''
"Polyamory
is not an alternative to monogamy. It's an alternative to
cheating,'' said Jasmine Walston, who lives in Louisville,
Ky., and is president of the Unitarian Universalists for
Polyamory Awareness.
"For
some of us, monogamy doesn't work, and cheating was just
abhorrent to me,'' she said.
To some,
the polyamory movement is reminiscent of the "free
love,'' swinging and open marriages of the 1960s and 1970s.
AIDS and
other sexually transmitted diseases dampened that sexual
liberation movement in the 1980s and 1990s.
Today,
Walston said, many people mistakenly believe that polyamorists
are careless in their sex lives.
"When
everything is out in the open, and your husband knows what is
going on, you're going to be more careful about safe sex,''
she said.
John
Hurley, a Boston spokesman for the 183,000-member Association
of Unitarian Universalists, says the views of polyamorists are
not necessarily endorsed by the denomination's board of
trustees.
Polyamorists
themselves are divided over whether to push for more formal
recognition from the Unitarians, or to begin public lobbying
for some of the same rights granted to heterosexual couples.
"We're where the gay rights movement was 30 years ago,''
Walston said.
Amsbury
says she favors expanding the legal definition of marriage to
include three or more people, but she doesn't expect to see it
anytime soon.
"We're
lovers, not fighters,'' she said. "We don't want to get
people's backs up.''
Other
polyamorists are concerned that their cause will be used by
opponents of same-sex marriage.
Just last
week, a group of conservative evangelicals asked San Francisco
Mayor Gavin Newsom whether his support of same-sex marriage
applied to multiple-partner marriages.
"What
possible reason could you find for discriminating against or
denying equal access to threesomes, foursomes, etc.?'' they
asked in a letter to Newsom.
Rebecca
Parker, the president of Starr King School for the Ministry in
Berkeley, says many Christians find polygamy even more sinful
than homosexuality.
Monogamous
heterosexual marriage, she says they also believe, is ordained
by God through the creation of Adam and Eve.
Even
though polygamy is practiced by some of the heroes in the
Bible -- and in many non-Christian cultures around the world
today -- it remains a Judeo-Christian taboo.
Starr King
is a seminary of the Association of Unitarian Universalists
and part of the Graduate Theological Union, a consortium of
Protestant and Catholic seminarians in Berkeley and Marin
County.
Unitarians
-- who encourage their members to seek spiritual truth based
on human experience, not allegiance to creeds and doctrines --
have been around since 1782. They merged with the
Universalists in 1961.
Many of
the students and faculty at Starr King see the polyamory
movement as a threat to gay and lesbian couples.
"In
the Protestant denomination, the movement to accept same-sex
couples was built on the idea that they, too, can have
lifelong monogamous relationships,'' Parker said. "Gays
and lesbians found safety in saying, 'We can have families.
We're normal -- just like everyone else.' That became the
basis for them asking for social acceptance and equal
protection under the law. ''
Very few
polyamorous Unitarian Universalist ministers are "out of
the closet." They fear it will wreck their chances of
getting or keeping a job with a congregation.
Jim
Zacarias, interim minister at the First Unitarian Church of
Albuquerque, recently came out to his congregation as
bisexual.
"People
who choose a polyamory lifestyle in our denomination are doing
it with an ethic of responsibility in their relationships,''
he said. "People in polyamory have the same struggles as
people in gay and lesbian relationships.
"Our
denomination has been welcoming to gays and lesbians and
transgendered people,'' Zacarias said. "Bisexuals have
not received the recognition they deserve.''
"Some
people in polyamory are bi, some are homosexual, some are
heterosexual. We are serving their needs,'' said Barb Greve, a
transgender person who likes to be called "he."
Greve is a
program associate with the Association of Unitarian
Universalists' Office of Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian and
Transgender Concerns in Boston
"There
are people who want to be in committed relationships --
whether it's heterosexual marriage, same-sex marriage or
polyamory -- and that should be acknowledged religiously and
legally,'' he said.
According
to Amsbury and other Unitarian polyamorists, most of the
people in their movement are bisexual or heterosexual.
Amsbury is
bisexual, her husband of two years is heterosexual, and her
current "other significant others" are bisexual.
One of
them, Peter, lives in West Hollywood with his boyfriend. The
other one, Conly, lives in Santa Rosa and has been her lover
for seven years.
"I
wear a wedding ring for my husband," she explained,
"and a bracelet for Conly.''
Though
Amsbury and her husband, Terrance Roff, did not involve Peter
and Conly in their Alameda marriage ceremony, other
polyamorous Unitarians have proposed church ceremonies to
bless threesomes, foursomes or moresomes.
One set of
guidelines for church blessings of polyamorous partners
suggests that the officiating minister try to put people at
ease by saying, "We are from many different faith
traditions, and we have many different experiences of love.
What made us say 'yes' to being here was the love among these
people.''
This
article has been corrected since its original publication.
E-mail Don Lattin at dlattin@sfchronicle.com.
accessed 07-11-04 at
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/
archive/2004/04/20/BAGIG67LNQ1.DTL
Used with permission.
|
Polyamory
and the Unitarian Universalist Association.
From
an open letter (21
April 2004) by
UUA President Bill Sinkford, responding to a San Francisco Chronicle article on UUs and Polyamory:
Unitarian
Universalists for Polyamory Awareness (UUPA) is a "related
organization"; unlike independent affiliate organizations (like
CUUPS), related organizations are not endorsed by the UUA board of
trustees.
... the Association has no official position on [the right of
polyamorous people to marry, i.e., polygamy] because official
positions are established by passage of resolutions at our General
Assembly, and there is no resolution on this issue.
Finally, the Association's social justice
work is focused on women's
equality and reproductive choice, protection of civil liberties,
marriage
equality [for gays and lesbians], and voter registration.
For more on
Unitarian Universalism's
current social justice work,
see
www.uua.org
|
|
Unitarian
Universalists for Polyamory Awareness
16323 Linden Avenue North
Seattle, WA 98133
206-546-8037
mailto: uupa@uupa.org
Unitarian
Universalists for Polyamory Awareness (UUPA) has as its mission to serve
the Unitarian Universalist community of polyamorous people by providing
support, promoting education and encouraging spiritual wholeness
regarding polyamory. UUPA defines polyamory as the philosophy and
practice of loving or relating intimately to more than one other person
at a time with honesty and integrity. UUPA advocates for any form of
relationship or family structure - whether monogamous or multi-partner -
which is characterized by free and responsible choice, mutual consent of
all involved and sincere adherence to personal philosophical values.
|
At
Issue:
Covenantal Relationships
and Polyamory?
Conservatives
attack the Gay and Lesbian
Right to Marry with the "slippery slope argument": if you allow this,
marriage could mean ANYTHING! Group marriages will be next.
A wide variety of relationships are identified with the term "polyamory,"
including poly-fidelitous
open relationship, inimate network, triad (l means all people have
a sexual relationship = 3 dyads), V - three people, two of whom
have a sexual relationship with one common person = two dyads. Some polyamorists cohabit; others prefer not to. Some involved
primary relationships with secondary wives; others don't.
Glossary
of terms:
http://poly.polyamory.org/~joe/
http://www.openweave.org/NCPoly/PolyTerms.html
An Informative Website on polyamory
http://www.ourlittlequad.com
***********************
Whether you are a polyamorist
or not, Pagan Institute Report invites you to weigh-in on the following issues:
Forum
Questions:
Would polyamorists WANT to marry [polygamy]? Why?
Would
polys who are NOT cohabitating WANT civil unions? If so,
why?
What responsibilities for all those partners would be
entailed?
What
are the promises (vows) which are most important for poly families to
make to each other?
What
kind of questions should a minister ask a poly couple seeking a
religious blessing on their union?
Is there a "good practice" covenant used by enduring poly
families?
Consent issues:
Having lived on
a commune back in the 60's, I can imagine a poly family where everyone is
equal. I can't understand how having "secondaries" can
be truly equitable. What's the difference between being a secondary
poly wife and practicing patriarchal polygyny (multiple wives sharing 1
husband)?
Please send
YOUR responses.
|
|
Due to the volume of mail,
The Pagan Conservative Forum
now has its own page.
www.paganinstitute.org/conservative_pagan.html
|
|
How
to Participate in this Forum
Share your
thoughts subject (50-1000 words) to the Editor, with
the subject line, "Forum."
Intelligent,
well-written replies are welcome. Others may be edited for length,
grammar, etc. If you resort to ad hominem attacks, expect a form letter
reply including meta-discussion on psychological projection.
Remember, this is the Arguments Room, not Abuse. For Abuse you
want alt.flame or witchwars.org.
Be sure to
sign your message as you would like to see it online, with your email addy or
website if you like. If you don't indicate your preference, we will sign
you with the first part of your email addy, leaving off "@provider.com."
By sending your response, you are indicating that the words are your own
and that we have your permission to print them in this e-zine and
archive them at PaganInstitute.org. We reserve the right to edit for grammar, length,
vulgarity, flames, etc. |
Do YOU have a
question for the Pagan community
or something you'd like to say?
Email your reply (50-500 words) to the Editor.
Longer articles are welcome too; those
appear at Explorations.
Updated June 28, 2005
|