A UU (One Dawn Mueller) living in the Chicago area (Central Midwest District, where I'm president) wrote this last week. I got on the list from our UUA trustee, I think.
Part 1 is her letter, but Part 2, the next post is the UUA response which is wonderful. I reprint them here on this blog, because I think it is important to remember that not all UUs are of one mind when it comes to politics, social justice, their intersection, and what "the right thing to do" is.
Dear Reverend Sinkford, President of the Unitarian Universalist Association, and
Part 1 is her letter, but Part 2, the next post is the UUA response which is wonderful. I reprint them here on this blog, because I think it is important to remember that not all UUs are of one mind when it comes to politics, social justice, their intersection, and what "the right thing to do" is.
Dear Reverend Sinkford, President of the Unitarian Universalist Association, and
Reverend Mark Stringer, Minister of the Des Moines First Unitarian Church, and
Reverend Nancy Haley, Unitarian Universalist Society of Iowa City, and
Reverend Gail Tapsott, Unitarian Universalist Church of Fort Lauderdale, and
Reverend Sherod Mallow, All Saints Episcopal Church of Fort Lauderdale, and
Rabbi Harold Caminker, Congregation Etz Chaim, Wilton Manors, Florida
(with copies to several Midwestern and Florida UU district members)
I am a UU who currently resides in Oak Park, Illinois -- a very GLBT-friendly community. I am formerly a resident of Iowa City, Iowa -- another very GLBT friendly community. I am writing out of concern for the ongoing efforts of the UUA and independent UU congregations in pushing for same-sex marriage legislation and other GLBT advocacy.
I'll be blunt. I feel as if the UUA has been hijacked by GLBT activists. I feel that the organization is advocating for a totally sex-blind society without truly understanding the social impact on individual, families, communities and the national morality and public health as a whole.
We are proceeding by ideology, not rationality. In our rush to promote a theoretically-impossible mathematical equality of human bodies, we are inadvertently promoting group sex, anorectal sex, anonymous sex, promiscuity, crystal meth-fired orgies and other illicit drug use and dependence. These are all high-risk behaviors for disease transmission throughout the public.
The result is an ever-growing HIV/AIDS epidemic in this country, along with the increased prevalence and incidence of other sexually-transmitted diseases. Bisexual males are exhibiting bridge-population behavior that is injecting disease into women, children and newborn babies. These infections have been incubated in a pool of promiscuous "men who have sex with men" and transmitted to women by men "on the Down Low."
I break with the pack of lemming Unitarian Universalists who feel that they must support a liberal cause, merely because it is touted as a "liberal cause." In our headlong plunge to promote our principle of "a free and responsible search for meaning," we are forgetting the word RESPONSIBLE.
Is it responsible of us to force conservatives and other persons who see the dangers of a society without sexual boundaries to have us in their faces each election cycle promoting a complete restructuring of society? Must we shove our ideology down the throats of the conservative, rural Midwest? Must we hijack the Iowa caucuses for our own sexual desires? Is it responsible for us to inadvertently promote the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases across the country? We need to STOP and look at what impact this Unitarian Universalist crusade is having on the public health of America.
I give you the example of Broward and Miami-Dade counties in Florida. These counties are infested with HIV/AIDS and other STDs. The primary disease vector is the subpopulation of "men who have sex with men." Public health statistics and analyses by the Centers for Disease Control and the Florida state public health department are quite clear in indicating this group as the main disease pool. It is from this pool that infections are moving into women, children and babies via infected men who engage in high-risk sex with men, then go infect women, many of whom are oblivious to the man's homosexual exploits. This is having a horrifying effect, especially, on African-American and Hispanic women, and it is affecting women of all walks of life. Sexually-irresponsible visitors to the Miami-Ft. Lauderdale region get infected there and bring these bugs back to the Midwest. I am a Unitarian Universalist, but I am also a woman, and I must put my foot down against this danger to the health of women and children.
Therefore, I stand in support of efforts by individuals such as Mayor Jim Naugle of Fort Lauderdale, who is very bravely standing up against the results of our foolishness, having recognized that it is women and children in his jurisdiction who are being harmed. He has, with great courage, stood up to the local and national liberals and GLBT activists and tourist business magnates who have attacked him for simply pointing out the very obvious relationship between high-risk sexual behavior and the exploding HIV/AIDS/STD problem in Broward County and Miami-Dade County in Florida.
Why the heck are we inadvertently promoting gay bathhouses, sex clubs, "tearoom sex" and orgies? Is it our goal to make America a place for equal-opportunity infection by devastating sexually-transmitted diseases? Why are we trying to make the anus and rectum mathematically and legally equivalent to the introit and the vagina? Is it so that we can all, equally, enjoy the fun of having AIDS and syphilis?
Attached please find a copy of a letter I have submitted to the City of Fort Lauderdale in support of Mayor Jim Naugle, in which I state my position, as a Unitarian Universalist. I want their local elected officials to realize that it's not just "radical right-wing Christian fundamentalist Reconstructionists" who are concerned about our Unitarian efforts to restructure American society.
Now that I see what we Unitarians are doing in Iowa, with respect to forcing gay marriage down the throats of conservative Midwestern farmers, I have to stand up and shout that we have gone too far. We have truly lost our marbles and are violating the right of Americans to have some social boundaries and stability in their daily lives. If we keep this up, the disease-infested polyamory crowd will be at the altar next, with "tearoom marriages" after that, performed by anyone who throws a long, rainbow-colored scarf around his or her neck and claims that he or she is a Unitarian Universalist minister.
We cannot put our faith in that holy garment, the condom. There is no such thing as "safe sex." "Safer sex" is not safe. Condoms break. Condoms leak. Condoms don't always get worn. "Barebacking" homosexuals scorn the condom. And HPV has been shown to be transmitted, even when condoms are worn. As a woman who was raped in the past and contracted the HPV virus, and who now is coping with cervical cancer, I can attest that no woman is completely safe from sexually-transmitted disease, not even those who are not sexually active. I urge the UUA and its member congregations to put on the brakes before America becomes another South Africa.

3 comments:
This article pains me deeply.
It is obvious that she has been very hurt by her ordeals. Not only to have survived rape, but to be faced with cancer afterwards. I definitely feel her pain.
What also saddens me, is she has incorporated several wrong facts and misinformation and has directed her anger at entirely the wrong target.
This proves to me all the more why we need to advocate for comprehensive sexuality education as well as encourage open and trusting dialog between members of the straight community and the glbtq communities.
I appreciated Keith's response and I hope efforts for mutual healing can come.
A homophobe living in Oak Park is in for a tough time of it.
I remember growing up in Oak Park in the 60s when everyone started moving out because they (African Americans) were coming (the MLK riots were only a few blocks east of Oak Park) and everyone's house value was going to tank.
They never came and instead the Gays did and everyone's house value skyrocketed.
There's a GLBT political machine in Oak Park for sure, with a lot more G's than LBTs as shot callers.
It's a better Oak Park for it but there are a few things that really grate... for example,
1) Oak Park created a registry in the 90s for couples to sign and proclaim their partnership. If one of the partners worked for the Village, it would entitle the other to health insurance.
It was largely symbolic but the one employee who tried to declare her adult-disabled-child as a partner was refused permission to sign the registry.
There were limits to Marriage Equality, and there were no GLBT's writing letters for her defense, instead it was mumbo-jumbo about waiting for the Clinton Health Plan. (And how will/should Iowa manage the same scenario?)
2) Gay Political activists in Illinois were awfully silent about the extremism of Gov Blagojvich's Sister Claudette Marie Muhammad on the Gov's Commission on Discrimination and Hate Crimes. (For that matter so was CMD I bet!)
So it's ok for Muhammad's spiritual mentor to talk about washing the streets of Jerusalem in blood because Israel allowed a Gay Pride parade without any criticism from Illinois's Hate Crimes commission because all the key players are Democrats and allies of Blagojvich.
It's hard to take criticism from activists who give passes like that.
3) I did a stint on the board of Unity Temple in the 80s. Oak Park's Council of Churches excluded our minister because we weren't a Christian Church.
Yet I had Gay friends in the conservative churches who would have nothing to do with the three UU Churches in or near Oak Park then...because we weren't Christians.
This was when HIV was decimating the community and the times felt very different then.
Conservative Churches offered a spiritual comfort in a high litergical style far too many Gays did not find with us at a time when they faced an existential threat.
Still though, it grated they would come to us to bless their Unions yet return to their Luthern or Episcoplian Church.
I could not help but wonder, despite what one thinks about this letter, was it correct to publish it on a blog or a list serve? I am assuming the writer actually mailed the letters and did not post them publicly. If she did not, what gives anyone a right to publish it?
Post a Comment