IGF CultureWatch

In 1968, Spence Silver, a 3M research scientist, accidentally created an adhesive with properties that were then novel. It was spherical; it had the thickness of a paper fiber; it did not dissolve; it did not melt; each individual sphere was very sticky. But when many spheres were brought together onto a tape backing, they didn't adhere very well.

For five years, Silver pitched his discovery to folks at 3M, but no one thought much of his creation. Finally, in 1973, an application was found: movable bulletin boards. But it was hardly an earth-shattering application.

Enter Art Fry, a new-product development researcher at 3M. He had learned about Silver's adhesive, and he thought to himself: If I could put some of that adhesive on the back of a piece of paper, I could create a more reliable bookmark for my church hymnal instead of the scraps of paper that keep falling out. He brought his idea to 3M. Some initially tried to kill the project; why compete with something that already exists and works so well already? But Fry and others persisted. They eventually went to Richmond, Virginia, to see if they could sell this notion of scrap paper with an adhesive edge. People were interested, and in 1980-a dozen years after Silver's discovery-3M launched the Post-it Note.

With all the hue and cry about civil union and its alleged inferiority, I ask myself: Do the people who accidentally created this new adhesive have any idea how powerful their invention is? I don't think they do.

So let me offer an application for their creation. Since October of 2001, I've been proposing a different way to move forward in our struggle toward marriage equality. The dominant voices from our community have demanded marriage for gays, and marriage has been the rallying cry ever since we came so close in Hawaii. But some of us want to see something that is at once more radical and more conservative: civil union for all.

It's clearly more radical, because no nation on earth has ever abandoned civil marriage and adopted an alternative. In a debate with an advocate of same-sex marriage, my proposal of civil union for all was dismissed as being so much wishful thinking. We will always have civil marriage, I was told. Really? This same advocate cautioned against filing marriage lawsuits too soon, for fear of suits that may be unwinnable in the courts of law and public opinion. All the while, she cited Hawaii- the suit most gay legal thinkers thought was premature-as the beginning of the current push for gay marriage.

Fifteen years ago, few of us fully envisioned the possibility of gay marriage. Dismissing civil union for all out of hand similarly represents a failure of imagination on the part of leaders in the gay community and elsewhere. After all, civil marriage cannot trace its lineage to the beginnings of ancient civilization. So who's to say that a nation might not one day adopt civil union for all?

And what better nation to do this than the United States? American exceptionalism is part of our birthright. If any nation is poised to reinvent legal relationships on a large scale, it is our great and innovative land. Liberty, justice, and civil union for all.

The other complaint I hear from the champions for same-sex marriage is: We didn't get civil union by asking for civil union. I was up here in Vermont when we got civil union, and to be honest, none of us were all that happy that we didn't get marriage. But at the same time, few of us conceived anything like civil union. It's awfully hard to ask for something that does not yet exist. Who would know to ask for a Post-it Note that hadn't yet been invented? Now that we have civil union for gay couples, it's not so unimaginable to ask for civil union for all couples, is it?

And this is what makes my proposal conservative. By saying that all couples, gay and straight, get a civil union, we solve a number of issues simultaneously. Take polygamy, for example. The defenders of traditional marriage wail that polygamy is right around the corner if society allows same-sex marriage. We all know, though, that marriage has long been associated with polygamy, and granting or denying same-sex marriage won't affect that history one whit. Civil union, in contrast, has no history. So let's define it: two people who are unrelated by blood and above a certain age are eligible for governmental recognition of their relationship and the benefits and obligations that come from that recognition. Poof! No polygamy.

And talk about the separation of church and state! Has anyone you know pontificated about the sanctity of civil union, about the need to protect traditional civil union? Of course not.

The champions of same-sex marriage think they can finesse the church-state issue by talking about civil marriage and how no religious body would be forced to conduct a gay wedding. These gay leaders have no idea how integral marriage is to the theology of many religious persons in the United States and elsewhere.

Time for some self-disclosure. I was formerly the chaplain of a conservative Christian college. I know the religious right fairly well. For many Christians, it's not just the sanctity of marriage colliding with strictures against homosexuality. Marriage is a mirror that reflects the relationship that Christ has with the Church. And if this metaphorical marriage consecrates two men or two women, who gets impregnated with the Spirit of God? The religious objection is far deeper than simply maintaining the status quo. It subconsciously (and sometimes consciously) reaffirms the distinction between the sexes and the traditional subservience of one gender to the other.

Who can forget how gender-bound our understanding of marriage is? Think of the sentences that are forever wed to the wedding ceremony. "I now pronounce you man and wife" (i.e., master and property). "You may kiss the bride" (more preferential treatment for the groom). For the life of me, I do not comprehend why gay people, of all people, want to buy into this history. Call one another "husband" and "wife" if you choose, but notice how straight couples are beginning to abandon this language in favor of something more egalitarian. There are no gendered expectations in civil union; it skirts the sex-specific baggage of religious marriage. In my book, that's an improvement.

Time for some more self-disclosure. I'm black. And am I the only one to notice that black clergy stayed pretty much out of this struggle until gays won the legal right to use the M-word? In Massachusetts, the Black Ministerial Alliance did not make their voice heard until after the advisory ruling that said that civil union would not do. That was when they stood in opposition, and not a moment before. Those of us who are black and gay often feel that we have to choose which community we will call home. As the battle for the M-word escalates and as more black clergy speak out against same-sex marriage, I know of one black gay man who is feeling torn between two communities he loves and treasures.

Call me deluded, but I happen to believe that most of the black clergy who are rallying against same-sex marriage would give civil union a pass. We don't know if they would, though, because we haven't asked them. Instead, we cluck our tongues at these unsympathetic black leaders: don't they recognize prejudice when they see it? But maybe we're so blinded by our dogged pursuit of the M-word that we don't see there are other ways of securing equality for all.

So here's my pitch. Civil union won't work if it's only for gays and straights can get married. That's called segregation, and segregation is illegal in America. And I certainly am not opposed to marriage for all. I just happen to prefer civil union for all.

A straight woman asked me: what about straight people who want to say they're married? I asked her: who's stopping them? Gay couples have been using the M-word for quite some time now; we've not waited for the government to give us permission. No one is thrown in jail for saying they're married or civilly united or whatever they choose. Indeed, the champions of same-sex marriage infantilize gay couples by making us feel we are incomplete until Big Brother calls us married. Hogwash. And to those who accuse me of harboring internalized homophobia, I say: look in the mirror, sweetheart. I don't need the M-word; why do you need it?

What I do need that I don't have now are the 1,138 benefits that the federal government gives to straight married couples. (You do realize that all those fabulous couples who got married in Massachusetts since May 17, 2004, don't have these benefits, don't you?) I need it to be portable, so that it is recognized from state to state. And the idea that only marriage will give us this is laughable. Besides, there's portability and there's portability. Will the married gay couple from Boston be recognized as married in Baghdad?

Last bit of self-disclosure. I am a practicing Episcopalian. And while I live in Vermont, I've followed closely the story of the Rev. V. Gene Robinson, Episcopal bishop of the neighboring diocese of New Hampshire. Robinson was once asked for his take on gay marriage. "If gay and lesbian people are full citizens of the country and state in which they live, they should be accorded the same rights as other couples. I don't think it matters whether you call it marriage or civil union as long as the responsibilities and the benefits are the same." Now, what would a man who had a heterosexual marriage, fathered two children, divorced, joined his life to that of another gay man well over a decade ago, conducted many, many marriages as an Episcopal priest, signed many, many marriage licenses as a deputy of the state, counseled couples prior to marriage, in marriage, and before divorce, and now oversees the Episcopal church in New Hampshire: I mean, what would he know about marriage?

All the same, Robinson may concede more than I want to concede. I would not be content with civil union for gays and civil marriage for straights. It's all one or the other for me. So like Monty Hall (remember him?), I say: Let's make a deal. Make it civil union for all, and we'll drop our insistence for marriage. And if the other side won't settle for civil union, then I guess I'll have to settle for marriage.

But I really would prefer civil union for all. After all, we gay people created it. It's a cultural makeover not even Queer Eye for the Straight Guy could engineer. It's simple and elegant at the same time. It takes religion out of the picture. It's new and improved. So let's make it ubiquitous as well.

Like that little piece of scrap paper with the weird adhesive on its edge. Who would have thought in 1980 that the Post-it Note would become so common? I didn't. And who imagines today that civil union for all could become universal? I do.

The late food critic Craig Claiborne used to tell a story of a woman who received a ham but didn't own a saw. Although she had never cooked a whole ham, she knew that her mother always prepared hams for cooking by sawing off the end, and she assumed it had to be done this way.

So the woman called her mother for instruction. The mother explained that she learned to cook from her mother, who always did it that way-she had no idea why. So the mother called the grandmother and asked: "Why did you always saw the ends off of hams before roasting them?"

"Because I never had a roasting pan large enough to hold a whole ham," came the surprised reply.

Such is the case with some of our moral beliefs. We hold them because our parents did, who held them because their parents did, and so on, even though no one is quite sure of the original rationale, and those who try to articulate it tend to fumble around a lot. It's certainly true of much opposition to homosexuality, which frequently boils down to "we just don't do things that way." Even those who claim to base their opposition in the bible often don't know what it says or why it says it.

Recently, I've become interested in a related but distinct problem: not people's forgetting WHY they object to homosexuality, but their forgetting THAT they do. More precisely, their forgetting that many people around them do. I was thinking of this recently as I sat waiting to lecture at a university in rural Illinois and anticipating The Shrug.

"The Shrug" is how I characterize the reaction many college students have to GLBT issues these days. It gets voiced in various ways: "I don't understand what the problem is." "Live and let live." "Do people really still have an issue with this?" So many of these kids knew openly gay students in their high schools, and they assume that homosexuality is now a non-issue.

If only they were right.

The same day as my talk, I received an e-mail from a student at my own university recounting an unpleasant (but not uncommon) experience in one of her psychology classes. The topic of homosexuality had come up, and a barrage of negative and ill-informed comments ensued: being gay is a mental illness; it's a result of child sexual abuse; it's a biological error. The professor did little to correct the students' misinformation, and even exacerbated the problem with degrading references to the gay "lifestyle." This, in an institution of higher learning in a major urban center.

Of course, that incident pales in comparison to what happened the day before, when fifteen-year old Lawrence King was fatally shot in a California classroom for being gay. Try telling King's friends that homosexuality has become a non-issue.

King's murder is an extreme example, and every decent person recognizes that it's a tragedy. Unfortunately, these same decent people often miss the subtler (but nevertheless powerful) tragedy of everyday homophobia. They ignore how the closet continues to undermine human dignity-even among educated, friendly, "enlightened" people. They underestimate homophobia's deep personal and social costs.

I don't wish to deny the tremendous progress we've made. We are, like the woman with the ham, asking the right questions and uncovering deep-rooted fallacies. The taboo is crumbling. But this success has a way of obscuring the fact that we're not there yet. Instead, we enjoy a sort of mezzanine-level acceptance-close enough to rub elbows with the highbrow folks in the front, but not so close as to avoid the riff-raff in the cheap seats.

The current presidential race provides a nice example. The Democrats are openly courting the gay vote, and even Republicans are warming up to civil unions and other more modest measures. This is progress! On the other hand, in a year where we've had a plausible African-American, female, and Mormon candidate for president, no one imagines that a gay person could get even close-not anytime soon. This is reality.

This dual position presents gay-rights advocates with a challenge. On the one hand, by treating homosexuality as a "non-issue," we help to make it so. We model the environment that we want, and we hope that the reality soon catches up to the rhetoric. On the other hand, by treating it as a non-issue, we gloss over the many ways in which we fall short. We unwittingly promote the myth that being gay is a cakewalk. It isn't-yet.

Jorge, my super, sat on my couch the other afternoon, having tea and pie. My building's heat was out again, but this time the problem was serious: the boiler had cracked. Jorge was waiting for a mechanic of some kind to come, and so I invited him in.

"You don't have children?" he asked. I knew he had five, all of whom still live in Ecuador.

I shook my head.

"You need children for a family," he said.

"I want children," I said.

He nodded and shrugged a shoulder. "Well, it's OK," he said. "In America, it's OK. You have children at 30, at 35, older. Plenty of time here to have children," he said.

We went on to other things, but part of me has fixated on that idea since. Plenty of time to have children? Can that be true?

I never thought I would have biological clock panic, but I am, a little. Partly it's because a couple months ago my age tipped toward 40 - I'm 36. But mostly it's because

1. I really do want children and always thought I'd have them and

2. as of this month, nearly every single one of my close female friends either has children, is pregnant, is trying to get pregnant, or is trying to adopt or thinking seriously about adopting. How did this happen?

Nineteen months ago, when I moved to New York, none of my Chicago friends had children, and none of my New York friends did, either. Most of my friends with kids were college friends who lived in other states, and whom I communicated with mostly through Christmas cards or reproductions of sonograms.

In Chicago, I was living a youthful life. I played flag football. I went to performance art. I hung out with friends. Children seemed very, very far in the future.

But then, toward the end of my time there, I dated a great girl who adored her many nieces and nephews. I fell in love with them and with her simultaneously; for the first time I understood the small joys a daily life with children could bring, and the deep closeness and respect and love you can feel for someone who partners with you in raising them.

She - they - were my only Chicago regret.

Since our time together ended, I've been thinking more and more about having kids myself. And then single women I was close to started having - or trying to have - children on their own, or adopting - or beginning the process.

Now, almost every conversation I have with a friend has babies or children in it. On the one hand, I now feel very comfortable with adoption, which means Jorge is right - I do have plenty of time to have children.

On the other hand, I feel very, very ready to have them. I've got a solid career and a lot of energy and happiness. Plus - and I hope this sounds the way I mean it to - I kinda want to raise kids during the same period my friends are raising them.

I already feel like my life is revolving a bit around children. Having them (or adopting them) myself while my friends are sharing experiences and babysitting and kid's clothes and strategies seems perfect.

Yet - I don't want to be a single mother. I'm sure I can do it. My own mother did it very well, and thousands of women raise wonderful children on their own. Also, single motherhood can always happen unexpectedly, for a variety of reasons - even if I were partnered, it could happen to me. But I would rather start raising kids within a loving partnership, for my own sanity.

At the moment, I feel very, very far from such a thing, and I've realized something lately - I actually want children more than I want to be partnered. And the idea of finding a partner to have a child is just as distasteful as having a child to save a partnership.

So what will I do?

For the moment, I'm just waiting. I'm listening to my friends as they explore their options. I study various fertility processes. I flip through adoption websites. I read up on adoption law, and what would happen if I had a child first and then found a partner who wanted to adopt my child later. I advocate for full marriage rights for gays and lesbians, so that the whole process will be easier. I go on dates with women who have children, because if it worked out, that would kill two birds.

I want to raise children - I'm not particular about whether I give birth to them or not. A dear friend tells me, "You can make that happen. That will happen. You have time."

Time, she says. I have time. And Jorge, too: "Plenty of time here to have children," he said. I try to relax in the fact of that. But as I watch the children of my friends get older so quickly, time seems race by.

Though it's gotten very little attention in the gay press, an important case affecting the lives of gays and lesbians is now pending in the Supreme Court. The case challenges the constitutionality of the District of Columbia's unusually strict gun-control law, which bans handguns and effectively prevents people from possessing firearms for self-defense in their own homes.

A brief filed in the case, on which I offered some counsel, argues that the law is especially harmful to gay Americans. The brief joins a large coalition of groups, including the National Rifle Association, arguing for individual rights under the Second Amendment.

The brief was filed on behalf of Pink Pistols and Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty (GLIL). Pink Pistols is an international group formed a few years ago with the basic mission of advocating gun ownership and training in the proper use of firearms by gay people. GLIL is a libertarian gay group that consistently defends individual rights.

The gay gun-rights brief argues that the D.C. gun-control law violates the Second Amendment, long the forgotten and some say most "embarrassing" part of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Many people have long argued that the reference to "a well-regulated militia" means that the right is limited to citizens serving collectively in a modern-day military force, like the National Guard. Under this interpretation, the amendment would not protect any individual right to bear arms outside the militia context, meaning that the government can entirely ban private gun ownership, even guns needed for self-defense in the home.

However, as even many liberal scholars now acknowledge, that interpretation makes little sense of the text and history of the amendment and of the Bill of Rights generally, which contains a series of individual rights.

The gay gun-rights brief adds an important perspective to this argument. It makes several points about the connection between firearms, gay rights, and the practical self-defense needs of gay Americans.

First, the brief argues that the right keep and bear arms is especially instrumental for a population at once subject to pervasive hate violence and inadequate police protection.

From 1995 to 2005, according to the FBI, more than 13,000 incidents of anti-gay hate violence were reported by law enforcement agencies. When you consider that fewer than half of all violent crimes are reported, it is certain that even this number seriously underestimates the problem.

Worse still, gays are often afraid to report anti-gay crimes. There is a sorry history of hostile or skeptical police response, public disclosure of the victim's sexual orientation, and even physical abuse by the police themselves. Investigative bias and lack of police training further complicate the picture. The upshot is that gays must be responsible for their own defense; they cannot rely solely on law enforcement for it.

Anti-gay hate crimes share several other characteristics that make the use of firearms for self-defense especially significant. Such crimes are unusually brutal, often involving multiple and vicious attacks. They are highly likely to involve multiple assailants. Attackers often themselves use guns, making anything short of a like defense almost completely ineffective.

Surprisingly, almost one-third of anti-gay bias crimes occur in the home, the precise location where the D.C. gun law forbids the effective possession of firearms for self-protection.

It's true that gun possession does not guarantee protection from violent crime. The gun may be incompetently used, for example. But where the Constitution itself protects an individual right, it is not for the government to say the citizen may not enjoy the right simply because she may not make effective use of it.

Second, the gay gun-rights brief points out that unless the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms, gay Americans are effectively disqualified from any exercise of the right. That's because under the current prevailing interpretation of the Constitution, the government may entirely exclude gays and lesbians from military service ("the militia").

If the Second Amendment protects only the collective right of a state's citizens to possess arms within a militia, and if gays may be excluded from that militia, then the Second Amendment is a dead letter for gay Americans. They have no rights on the subject the government is bound to respect.

I do not own a gun. Frankly, I don't much like them and have never felt I needed one for protection. But for many other gay people, especially the ones living on the margins of life in crime-prone or anti-gay areas, owning a gun is one important part of a comprehensive plan for protecting life and property.

Gun ownership might at the very least give them peace of mind. And widespread knowledge that many gays are packing might give their would-be attackers second thoughts. Gun rights are gay rights.

This week on Capitol Hill, supporters of syringe exchange programs (SEP) for HIV prevention celebrated a victory. Last year, Rep. José Serrano (D-N.Y.) led successful efforts in the House of Representatives to allow the District of Columbia to spend its own funds on syringe exchange after a nine-year ban. D.C. has the highest HIV infection rate in the country, and Congress' ban on local funding (interference not faced by the states) severely hampered prevention efforts. President Bush's 2009 budget proposal calls for reinstating the local funding ban in D.C., but that will likely be ignored by congressional Democrats.

A campaign is now underway to overturn the older nationwide ban on federal funds, dating to 1988. We came close ten years ago.

In 1998, President Clinton's Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala, was ready to call a press conference to confirm scientific findings that SEP helped decrease HIV infections without increasing drug abuse, and to announce that federal funds could be used for the purpose. At the last minute, Clinton bowed to pressure from his drug czar, General Barry McCaffrey, who claimed syringe exchange sent the wrong message to children. In the end, Shalala had to defend continuation of the federal funding ban despite confirming the effectiveness of syringe exchange.

POZ magazine founder Sean Strub urged Secretary Shalala to resign in protest. He wrote, "Let's hope that Clinton's modestly supportive (albeit failed) initiatives on gay issues are never confused with his record on AIDS, which is one of cowardice, opportunism, callous disregard and cynical dismissal." Scott Hitt, head of Clinton's AIDS advisory panel, said, "At best this is hypocrisy. At worst, it's a lie. And no matter what, it's immoral."

For two decades, the federal government, in the name of its ill-conceived "war on drugs," has blocked funding for a program proven to save lives. The irrationality of the "Just Say No" mindset, whether pertaining to drugs or sex, has been amply criticized. What is more disturbing is the silence and even complicity of people who know better. Clinton caved so many times on so many issues that one wonders what he thought the Oval Office was for. Oh, never mind.

What about the Clinton now running for president? Sen. Hillary Clinton answered a question last April from AIDS activist Charles King about SEP by saying, "I want to look at the evidence on it." Reminded that Secretary Shalala had affirmed the effectiveness of syringe exchange but that President Clinton had refused to end the federal funding ban, Sen. Clinton cited political realities. King pointed out that she had said we need a president with spine, and she replied, "We'll have as much spine as we possibly can, under the circumstances." By contrast, Sen. Barack Obama supports lifting the federal funding ban. John McCain's Senate office did not respond to an Associated Press query, but he voted on the Senate floor against D.C. funding of SEP in 2001.

It is not only the feds who have allowed ideology to trump the evidence on this issue. For example, in 2006, after Massachusetts lawmakers finally passed a bill permitting the sale of hypodermic syringes without a prescription, it was vetoed by then-Gov. Mitt Romney. Fortunately, the veto was overridden. On the other hand, life-saving needle exchange programs have been limited to four Massachusetts cities (Boston, Cambridge, Northampton and Provincetown) due to local opposition. This underscores the need for federal leadership.

For now, with D.C. finally able to fund syringe exchange, there are many who deserve recognition for their leadership: Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.); D.C. Council member Jack Evans (D-Ward 2); PreventionWorks!, which in addition to operating an SEP without public funds, had to overcome police interference and community mistrust; AIDS Action; amfAR; DC Appleseed; Human Rights Campaign; The AIDS Institute and Director of Federal Affairs Carl Schmid; Washington AIDS Partnership and Executive Director Channing Wickham; and Whitman Walker Clinic and Associate Executive Director Dr. Patricia Hawkins.

On Feb. 7, National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day, the Harm Reduction Coalition launched a campaign with the NAACP, the National Urban League and other groups to lift the federal funding ban. African Americans are disproportionately affected by HIV, and intravenous drug use is a vector for new HIV infections. It is past time to put lives and science first; but experience shows that this requires more than a change of political party. It requires political will.

David Kinnaman has seen the handwriting on the wall: "As these new generations begin to make up a larger share of the public, homosexuals will gain greater rights and protections-and widespread acceptance-in our culture."

Kinnaman is not happy about this. Kinnaman, who heads the Barna Group, which conducts survey research on and about evangelical Christians, is the author of Unchristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks about Christianity...and Why It Matters (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007).

Kinnaman focuses on young people 16-29, particularly those he calls "outsiders"-atheists, agnostics, adherents of other religions and the "unchurched." Those now make up 40 percent of young people, he reports. Just a decade ago Christianity had an overwhelmingly positive image among the young, including outsiders, he says. But no longer.

"Our most recent data show that young outsiders have lost much of their respect for the Christian faith." They hold several negative images of Christianity: it is judgmental (87 percent agreed), too involved in politics (75 percent), hypocritical (85 percent), and out of touch (72 percent).

But the predominant negative perception is that Christianity is "antihomosexual." Fully 91 percent of "outsiders" say Christianity is anti-gay. Remarkably, 80 percent of young churchgoers agree:

"In our research, the perception that Christians are 'against' gays and lesbians-not only objecting to their lifestyle"-i.e., sex-"but also harboring irrational fear and unmerited scorn toward them-has reached critical mass. The gay issue has become the 'big one,' the negative image most likely to be intertwined with Christianity's reputation." In short, "A new generation of adults ... now accepts homosexuality as a legitimate way of life."

Kinnaman's book is meant to warn Christians that their political influence on the issue of homosexuality will ebb and that they need to undertake a "kinder, gentler" approach to gays such as getting to know them, engaging them in conversation, showing compassion, and talking about Jesus instead of initially taking a moralistic approach.

I am not sure that "compassion" is what gays expect these days. Acceptance is what most expect. But given the reiterated condemnations of "the homosexual lifestyle" (i.e., sex) by Kinnaman and his commentators in the book, evangelical Christians cannot offer that. It is their bottom line, their obsession.

But the Jesus of the gospels said nothing to condemn homosexuality. So the Christians eventually have to stop talking about Jesus and talk about "the Bible" (including the Old Testament), or even a rather amorphous (and manipulable) "biblical perspective." Bait and switch.

So the Christians have nothing to offer gays by way of sexual relating. Kinnaman asks, as if uncertain, "Is it still true that homosexuals have deep sexual needs, just like the rest of us?" But all they offer is celibacy. As one commentator writes, "What if we could provide intimate Christ-centered community and accountability for him or her in that pursuit? We believe that community is the answer to everyone feeling loved and human." Somehow it just doesn't seem the same.

Kinnaman moves inconspicuously from inoffensive "first statements" to more offensive "repetitions." He first says Christians oppose "church-sanctioned weddings for same-sex couples," which is part of their freedom in a civil society. But later referring to legislators, he says it is important to affirm that "marriage is between one man and one woman." So he thinks that not only churches should bar gay marriage but the state as well, a very different matter.

And Kinnaman refuses to engage the strongest gay arguments. For instance, asserting that a child needs a mother and a father, he opposes gay adoption. But-putting aside the research on same-sex parenting-there are many children in foster care and innumerable orphans worldwide with no parents at all. Are they better off with no parents or with two loving gay parents? Kinnaman refuses to reply.

Perhaps the most offensive Christian claim is that, as one commentator says, "There is not a special judgment for homosexuals (nor) ... a special righteousness for heterosexuals." Or as a pastor Kinnaman quotes puts it, "The struggle of gays in being attracted to the same sex is not different than my struggle in being attracted to the opposite sex."

What effrontery! All Christians know that loving heterosexual sex within marriage is perfectly legitimate and has a "righteousness" according to their God (Gen. 1:28). The unnamed pastor's attraction to his wife-a member of the opposite sex-has a legitimate mode of sexual expression, so the desire ("temptation") can be acted on. But his doctrine allows nothing for gays. Ultimately, one has to doubt these people's honesty or their intelligence.