One of my daughters was in the workplace one day, and her particular workplace at that moment in time, there were a whole bunch of conservative, older men. And those guys were talking about gay marriage. They were talking about discussions going on across the country. And my daughter Kate, after listening for about 20 minutes, said to them: ‘You guys don’t understand. You’ve already lost. My generation doesn’t care.’ I think I learned something from my daughter that day, when she said that. And Ive talked with other people about it and that’s what I see, Senator McKinley. I see a bunch of people that merely want to profess their love for each other, and want state law to recognize that. Is that so wrong? I don’t think that’s so wrong. As a matter of fact, last Friday night, I hugged my wife. You know I’ve been married for 37 years. I hugged my wife. I felt like our love was just a little more meaningful last Friday night because thousands of other Iowa citizens could hug each other and have the state recognize their love for each other. No, Senator McKinley, I will not co-sponsor a leadership bill with you.

Update 12/17/2008 02:25 AM: I have also decided to license of this letter (perhaps presumptorily) with a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike License. Details are at the bottom of the post.

December 13, 2008

Dear Cousin,

I received your letter almost immediately after returning from the joyous occasion of my wedding and my honeymoon, and it upset me greatly. I had just completed one of the most momentous and happy occasions of my life only to come home to a disturbing letter from someone who ostensibly is supposed to be supporting me, and who further, quite frankly, knows very little about me, who I am, and what I believe.

While I understand that you say your conscience or your faith may have compelled you to write your letter, I must question what ends you hoped to achieve by doing so. As many of the arguments in Catholic theology themselves rest upon the ends not justifying the means, and assuming that you surely understood before sending your letter that even despite its peaceful tone it likely would be an offensive and inappropriate way to achieve questionable ends, I must say I was and continue to be mystified as to what actually persuaded you to print the letter, stamp it, and mail it. I have never felt compelled to write another person and tell them that I think they are sinful and that their fundamental nature—their very being, in fact—is wrong, even when I do have strong feelings on the matter. I haven’t even gone so far as to write another person attacking their beliefs—the things that they choose to put faith in, but that are not in fact an inseparable part of their nature any more than their favorite food or color choice is—let alone the immutable facts about their very existence. A simple “No” RSVP would have sufficed.

I have weighed heavily on how to respond to you, or whether to do so in the first place, on the grounds that doing so would seem somewhat pointless. But your letter was hurtful and not right even when couched in the shroud of alleged love, and you deserve to know that.

Denying others their own love is not love itself, and nor is prescribing to others who, when, and how they may love. It is quite the opposite.

I have gone over many of the arguments you present in your letter for years—starting first in my Catholic morality class at St. John’s and continuing on through the rest of my Jesuit education at Fordham—and I have, since the beginning, found them morally, logically, and philosophically lacking, and even worse at times inconsistent with other Church teaching. While the faithful may be willing to accept such denials of logic, nature, and reality, I am not. Notwithstanding the fact that I am not Catholic and never have been—and thus am no more bound by its tenets than I am by those of Islam or Rastafarianism or Scientology for that matter—I think it is more than fair to say that I have a thorough understanding of Christ’s teachings as well as the very separate issues of Catholic history and dogma. I continue to educate myself on them, and on other religious and philosophical issues, to this day.

The history of the Church—and in fact, of most religions in general—is at its immutable root that of man interpreting God. Regardless of what you believe about holy men or church leaders, about their callings or grace or holiness, they are all by definition fallible men, and as fallible men they have always made, and continue to make, many mistakes. This in an inarguable point, as history has shown us. Sadly for all humans, those men that lead the Church have repeatedly misinterpreted God on too many occasions to count, and further on too many of those occasions those misinterpretations have been in polar opposition to Church teaching, overall Christian theology, and humanistic morality. While some people might wave these uncomfortable facts away and continue to believe in spite of the hypocrisy, I cannot and will not do so.

Many of those awful mistakes (and they are most certainly still being made) are transgressions against God and man. They are among the most heinous acts in the history of humankind: the Crusades; the Inquisition; the Protestant Salem Witch Trials; Popes fathering children; the complicity of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust; the Church Sex Scandals; steadfastly insisting on the heliocentric theory of the universe and the resulting excommunication of Galileo; the Vatican’s recent opposition of the UN resolution condemning discrimination based on sexual orientation; the list goes on and on and on. While I am sure at some point those churchmen who were browbeating Church dogma into others thought they were doing God’s will because the Church told them to, we know now that they were not. They were in fact committing acts of evil. And if they had stopped to think about Jesus’ core message in the first place, perhaps they would have also stopped and saw that their Church was so incoherently wrong in its actions and teachings at the time that they should had come to a conclusion on their own, and that history, sanity, honesty and morality would vindicate them in the long run.

Agreeing with the Church simply because the Church teaches something does not absolve anyone from the wrongdoing that might result from their following that teaching. If the Church is doing something wrong, it is the right and duty of any and every human being to disagree with it, to speak forcefully out against it, and to actively work to change it. Someone who murdered others in the name of the Church during the Crusades or who was complicit when a Nazi went to slaughter a Jew or a gay person during the Holocaust was still guilty of a heinous crime against man and God regardless of whether his Church ordered him or allowed him to do so or not, and regardless of whether he thought that by following Church doctrine he was doing something morally right.

Which is all to say that the Church has been wrong many times in the past, and that those with the courage and conviction to stand up against it when it is doing wrong are those we now honor as bringers of light and as the true followers of Jesus Christ. Jesus himself defined that when he stood up against the religious corruption that surrounded him during his life.

The fundamental nature of being gay is rooted in love, in the inherent right to choose to seek one’s happiness and to love those whom one was made by God himself to love, and further to love them in the manner of one’s choosing. While the Church may not agree with this, I think Jesus would be shaking his head in disgust at the Church’s attempts to stop people from being loving with one another, especially when they are doing so in his name. It is yet again another example of the divergence between Christ and those who say they follow him. “I like your Christ,” said Gandhi. “I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

In its position, the Church is essentially saying “You can love who we say you can love in the manner we say you can love them.” Since God is love, by defining the boundaries of love the Church is by extension trying to corral God into its own small, sad version of love rather than the all-encompassing reality of love of all shapes and sizes that God truly is. But the Church does not have a monopoly on love or on God, and neither God nor love will be corralled. Thankfully God is bigger than the Church, and God loves the Church and its folly—and those who acquiesce to its folly—in spite of their attempts to make him less than he is, and in spite of their attempts, however well-intentioned, to define him to fit their own narrow definition.

Anselm’s ontological proof of God said that God is the greatest thing of which any of us can conceive, and I subscribe to his proof, at least in part. I think it follows, however, that a God who has any sort of anthropomorphized limitation—such as anger or dislike or anything remotely resembling human emotion—is not the greatest thing of which we can conceive. Since as I am sitting here writing this I am conceiving of a God who is much greater than that, who is not so petty as to make bizarre rules about how, when, where, and whom one can love, it stands to reason that such a limited God goes not exist, and that in fact even my conception of God is limited. If the greatest thing the Catholic Church can conceive of is a God who is thus limited by the aforementioned things—namely Church dogma—I do not think it is God who is limited.

I am also perfectly certain that the Church is wrong about this issue, like it has been wrong about so many things in history. Its current stand against homosexual sex is a convoluted argument that irreducibly binds sex to the creation of life, which simply makes no sense, since in the natural world those things are by their nature decoupled. Their exact same policy holds that impotent heterosexuals cannot get married and nor can infertile couples use IVF to have children, which are both reprehensible, nonsensical viewpoints, and are again inexcusable attempts at reducing the many forms of love into a palsied, weakened, single definition. It is not wrong in reality for impotent couples to get married or for infertile couples to have children through science or for gay people to have sex. Condemning gay people to such life condemns them to loneliness and constant sadness, and I can’t even begin to believe that is what Jesus would want for any of us.

All of these things may be wrong in the eyes of the Church, but we also know that that Church has been unconscionably wrong before. Since we know this, we also know that believers must all necessarily take personal responsibility for forming their own consciences and senses of morality outside of the framework of their religion in order to lead just lives. While the Church may be right on things, the fact that it has been so wrong before leaves the weight of morality on the shoulders of the individual and not on the religion. There are many truths out there, and many ways to view the world, and no one viewpoint can possibly encompass all of the wonder that is creation. You can choose to agree with everything your Church says, but in doing so, as an intelligent person, you also must implicitly realize all of the facts that I have mentioned above—that your Church has been wrong before, that its wrongs have caused significant hurt and anguish throughout time, that it is doing so as we speak, and that, by agreeing with it, you are perpetuating this injustice upon millions of people. Ultimately those who have done the most good in the world, including Christ himself, have set about forming and claiming their own morality in what amounts to a revolution against the entrenched status quo and the corruption and malfeasance present in the lumbering organized religion around them.

Again, just as has happened in the past, those who stand in just defiance of wrongdoing; who stand on the side of the oppressed; who would do unto others as they would have it done unto themselves; and who continue to live the true message of Jesus Christ through their words and actions will stand in history as the true Christians, while those that simply follow their religion’s system because it is what their religion says and is the easy thing to do will face their own fate.

Lastly, you circumspectly used the word “union” in your letter to me, as if by using the word “marriage” you would yourself be “recognizing” my marriage as such. Luckily, no one needs anyone else’s recognition of his marriage to make it one. The idea that one person “doesn’t recognize” another’s marriage is ludicrous in the first place. If I were to suddenly not recognize every heterosexual marriage out there would it somehow alter the actual relationship between any of those married couples? Of course not. The logical extension of that theory is that unless everyone agrees on what to call a relationship that it remains in some undefined limbo. The very notion is absurd. Can I define your relationship with your parents, or with your daughter, or with me? Not in the slightest. Jonathan and I alone define our marriage, and anyone else “not recognizing” it makes about as much sense as not recognizing that the sky is blue. It is a denial of reality. We are married whether anyone else likes it or not. Jonathan is my husband, and I am his. He is part of your family now, whether you like it or “recognize” it or not, and you would do well to remember that when next we all meet.

For I have been somewhat uncomfortable or even afraid of being around my family for precisely this reason for most of my life, and that notion is both sad and absurd. I have avoided family gatherings precisely because certain members of my family put me in a position where the things they choose to believe come into conflict with the thing that I am. The absurdity here lies in my own fear of my family, but the sadness lies on the other side. Neither I nor anyone else should ever be in a position of having to defend themselves as they were created. I will not do so any more. My immediate family is unified with me on this. They have wondered, for the longest time, why I have avoided coming home during the holidays and at other times, and it’s precisely because of this reason. I’m done with it, with being uncomfortable where I have no cause to be. God made me to do better things than cower in the shadow of those who would use his name to do harm to others.

I was actually unaware that my marriage—my joyous, wonderful, happy marriage—had any negative effect on anyone, and quite frankly I fail to see how it could. No one has a right to be hurt or upset about my being gay or my being married, and if they do that is entirely in their hearts and is quite frankly their problem that they need to keep to themselves. I am, too, a good and just person. I have volunteered and continue to volunteer my time with the poor, the sick, and the disenfranchised and have since I was a teenager. I was raised to be a man for others, and I will raise my children to be the same. I stand up for the rights of those who can’t stand up for themselves even in the face of overwhelming misunderstanding, opposition, and hate. I have been gay since I was born, and being gay is an immutable part of who I am. I am perfectly comfortable with it, and with where I sit in relation to God in regards to it, as well. The opinions of the men of the Catholic Church could not have any less relevance for me.

What does have relevance for me is the support of the majority of my family and certainly all of my friends. The family members who came out to support us at our wedding were an incredibly important part of the celebration, and I can’t thank them all enough. When I told them of this letter they were utterly shocked and angered by it; they couldn’t believe that one of my family members would take it upon themselves to sully such a joyous occasion and bring sadness and misery down on what was an otherwise fantastic event. I myself still remain shocked by it.

It is not easy to live as a gay person in the world. It means living in a world of prejudice and misunderstanding, of religiously sanctioned bigotry, of fighting for rights and fearing for safety in small-minded places, of getting mistreated and laughed at and marginalized in ways you really can’t imagine. It is a world of families tearing themselves apart and homes being broken, and it’s all over love. There is nothing just about that, and by acting the way you have acted in writing your letter you have continued that injustice.

There is a time that one must choose between what is right and what is easy, and it is always easy to plant oneself behind the views of one’s religion in an attempt to justify one’s behavior. Just because your religion tells you something does not make it right.

Being gay is the furthest thing from easy. But it is right for gay people to be here in the world, and for us all to live our lives happy and fulfilled. Someday the Church and its followers will realize that. Until then I will continue to work against those who would smother my love, and the love of hundreds of millions more people, with their own beliefs.

I will love whom I choose to love, in the manner of my choosing. No one is going to limit me, and that is just as God intended.

Best,

Nick

Response to My Cousin by Nick Hodulik is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License

October 14, 2008

Dear Nick,

I know that your union took place a few weeks ago. Over the period of time since I received your invitation, I have felt compelled to write to you. It’s not a palpable thing to try and support someone while at the same time not condoning his or her actions. So I will state my beliefs and hopefully you will understand.

To begin with I think everyone who has physically moved on from the Genoa/Toledo area has not just moved on in the physical sense, but also in who we are. The values we received in our youths from our parents, aunts and uncles, and grandparents have been manipulated and reshaped by the experience of higher education, time spent making a living, and living our lives. In some ways those original values and beliefs have matured and grown, and some have diminished or been replaced. By the same token our faith beliefs have changed, and some have grown deeper and some have been let go. As we mature and begin to contemplate our own mortality, the strength of our faith changes, much like the ebb and flow of our life, as we move in our faith journey with God.

About six years ago I went through an experience that resulted in a faith filled epiphany in my relationship with the Lord, and even though the low points still occur in my life, I feel I always have the Lord on my side. I have also learned just how ignorant to the faith I was, and more importantly how sinful I was as a person. This caused me to change my life. Not drastic changes mind you, but changes just the same. Some were little things, like lending a helping hand, going out of my way to help others expecting nothing back in return, sharing my faith with others, and being involved in various church committees, being a Eucharist minister, being a sponsor for the Right of Christian Initiation into the Catholic Church, and partaking in two faith based mens’ groups (including an accountability/discipleship group that meets weekly, and attending Mass twice a week. This is all in an effort to live my faith through actions to show my love of God, and to be the best version of myself, not only for the benefit of myself but for those I come in contact. One could say that although I thought I could bend or change God’s message, in fact his message has changed me.

One of the sinful acts I was not aware of was sexual relations outside of marriage. For whatever reason in my own naivete or just refusing to believe it a sin, I figured as long as you were not married you could have sex with whomever you chose, and if you were married, if you had sex with someone other than your spouse then it was a sin. Well, as convenient as this mindset was, it did not follow God’s teachings and certainly didn’t follow Church law regarding the Sacrament of Marriage. My faith, based on Church teaching in regard to any sexual act with another person is unholy and sinful if it is outside of the Sacrament of Marriage (whether you and the other person are unmarried or not).

I also believe the Church’s teaching that the Sacrament of Marriage is entered into by two heterosexual people, with the first and primary reason for the union is to bear children. Therefore, unlike the State of California’s judiciary branch, I do not believe a union between two same sex people constitutes a sacramental marriage, which is the only marriage that in my faith I can recognize. If a marriage is not before God, then it is not a marriage. This is my belief.

I don’t believe that being a gay man in and of itself is sinful, just as I believe that people do not choose to be gay. I believe that the homosexual’s mind and a heterosexual’s mind are just different. Not right or wrong, just different. The interesting thing is what you do to act upon your sexual orientation. A gay man would be committing a sin by having a sexual relationship with another man, or woman, whether he is recognized as being “married” in the State of California or not. A gay man, who maintains his sexual abstinence, can be a righteous man in the eyes of the Church, and therefore God.

I know that your ceremony has caused consternation and some hurt in our family, and what you may feel is close minded backwards thinking, may be the same Church teachings held by others that I have mentioned. You may have even thought some that you love would not be receptive or be hurt by the idea of your ceremony.

I wish you the best with your future, and hope when our paths cross again, we may have a better understanding of each other.

You are in my thoughts and prayer,

Cousin

Update 1/6/09: I’m just adding a link to My Response To My Cousin, which has been up since the same day I posted this but has not been linked to directly from here.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Hehehehehe