"A.J. Rose" (Jonathan) (ajrose93) wrote,
"A.J. Rose" (Jonathan)
ajrose93

  • Mood:
  • Music:

Homosexuality and Holiness :)

Sol and Luna conjoined in Taurus, Dies Martis
30 Taurus C / 18 May 2004 EV

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Some of you don't know this, but twenty-three years ago at this time -- when I was roughly the equivalent of clergy, in a Christian denomination -- I served a brief stint as an observer on the Southern California Ecumenical Council. At the first meeting I attended in that capacity, one item on the agenda was the petition of the Metropolitan Community Churches for admission to the Council...said denomination founded to minister primarily to the homosexual community. There were two polite, friendly, earnest young (women) ministers there from the churches, arguing in favor of their inclusion.

The ensuing debate struck me as very weird. Here were these longtime clergyfolk on the Council pondering the issue, and virtually all of them seemed to agree: (1) that the gay churches had every right to be recognized, but that (2) their own denominations would never put up with it, so they weren't really free to grant them entrance. I found this incomprehensible: surely they couldn't be making their decision solely on political grounds?

Observer or no, I raised my hand to ask the question they seemed too uncomfortable to raise: In fairness, wasn't the objection as much moral as it was political? Alas, the woman chairing the meeting (mis)understood me to be raising a moral objection of my own, and launched into a stirring speech dressing me down for my dreadful intolerance, and stating her determination to pray for my eventual enlightenment...which might have been more impressive had this towering group of moral paragons not been displaying (so it seemed to me) such moral cowardice at the time.

Look, if a bunch of (mainly) Christians and Jews (I don't recall the positions of Moslems or Hindus) wanted to object to a homosexual denomination on moral grounds, that at least made a kind of sense -- the JudeoChristian religions include specific denunciations of homosexuality. To have no moral objections but reject the application anyway seemed to me a lot more "immoral" than anything the gays were up to, despite my own then-belief (however much I loathed the (anti-gay) Anita Bryants of the world) that homosexuality was an "error." I even said as much to the gay clergywomen after the meeting: not the "error" part, the "if they didn't have a moral objection they should have let you in" part. Said clergywomen, understandably enough, didn't want to like me (it's been a long time since I liked the twenty-six year old me, come to that), and I apologized then -- and happily repeat that apology now -- if I gave offense...but I've often thought since about the tendency to try to get rid of only part of our slavery, and keep the rest.

I am rambling on: big topic, lots of facets, already too many words.

Listen: a hundred years ago at this time, Aleister Crowley was announcing to the world -- however marginally -- that the old dispensations were over, and that it was only a matter of time until the world acknowledged that fact. When he said that, nothing could have seemed more loony, more obviously untrue. Nevertheless, yesterday, the first legal homosexual marriages in US history were solemnized, in the historic Commonwealth of Massachusetts, no less.

Where once the law hanged witches, it is now marrying gays.

I may post an essay on the inevitability of Thelema...but for the moment, I raise the Roseate glass (iced coffee, just now) to the holiness of homosexual marriage -- and to Uncle Al, who saw it coming so long ago.

Love is the law, love under will.

Yours in Love and Freedom, AJ

Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 3 comments