Avdat

Left my heart in San Francisco

Gay, Catholic, conservative Andrew Sullivan is the go-to blogger today:

Ed Harrington, the general manager of the city's Public Utilities Commission, was one of the staff members in the mayor's office shortly after the decision was released. Harrington has lived with his partner for 35 years and in 2004 Harrington married about 40 same-sex couples.

"You wait for this your whole life," said Harrington, who said he planned to call his partner and say, "I love you. What more do you say on a day like this?"

I've spent the bulk of my ordained ministry dealing with guys who live by the "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" motto and gals who inexplicably accommodate them.  I'm finding it hard to get all that worked up over people who are eager to marry.

Overheard: best pickup line ever

If you were in my gaming world, I'd give you 18 charisma.

It's business time

This chick makes the people at Relevant Church look positively frigid.

What's next?  52 weeks of the Mile High Club for the married traveling salesman?

Somebody stop the madness!

Valerie's world

Jonathan condemns polygamy, and argues that any openness to blessing "non-exploitative polygamous relationships" is just another example of the Enlightenment run amok.

I didn't see Larry King's interview with "Valerie," but it sounds like she's arguing that marriage is a civil contract like any contract, and that the state has no rational basis for limiting that contract to just two parties.  If that's the argument, then I don't think that's liberalism per se, but libertarianism, which argues that the government's sole role in regulating contracts is to ensure that they're entered into freely and that all terms are observed by all parties.

Fortunately we don't live in a libertarian society.  So there's all manner of regulation of contracts.  Take anti-trust law, for instance.  A lot of these laws ask whether the common good is helped or harmed by a certain merger or acquisition, and if not, said deal is not permitted to go ahead.

So even if we concede that Valerie's in a fine relationship, it's pretty easy to make the argument that polygamy mostly looks like what's practiced in places like Warren Jeffs' west Texas compound, which is reason enough to ban it. 

Plus, marriage streamlines everything.  With marriage, you know exactly who can pick up the kids from school, who can pull the plug at the hospital, and who inherits the house.  But legalized polygamy would seem to reintroduce a lot of uncertainty into settled territory.

But the point is that government regulation of contracts shows us that liberalism is not entirely amoral.  One need not appeal to revelation to condemn polygamy, nor insist that the state's only recourse in banning polygamy is to adopt a religious (albeit nonsectarian) rationale.

No suitable title for this blog post

Because some posts gotta have soundtracks (HT--Jennifer)...

Who does this white boy think he is, Barry White?

I'm think the latter artist would definitely be a better fit for Relevant Church's praise and worship team.  Too bad he's dead.

You Tube bonus!  This is how they give their testimony at Relevant Church! 

Silly me.  I thought that the X in SEX was going to stand for, "We watch X-rated videos together."  But I'm a guy.  Of course I'd think that.

Thirty days of sex

Linking to without comment, except to say to my elders who read my blog, If you want to put this on the Session agenda next month, knock yourself out.

UPDATE:  I can't help myself.  I must comment!  Although Mrs. Avdat has already put me on notice.

I went to the church's website, a congregation named (apparently without a trace of irony) Relevant Church.  People are not having enough sex, they flatly assert.  And couples are divorcing as a result. 

Au contraire, married people are having more sex than you'd imagine, and single people, less than you'd imagine.  Which makes complete sense, if for no other reason than "availability."  So this might be a solution in search of a problem.  Fer sure, Kip would disagree, but I have a suspicion that Kip and Joan's marriage, while hysterically stereotypical, is far from typical.

I do admit it's an intriguing idea.  It turns Lenten discipline on its head.  Indulge, don't renounce.  (Although the church does invite singles to abstain from sex for a month). 

And to tell the truth, saying that a great sex life takes "focus, determination and planning" tracks with what I tell couples in premarital counseling.  Again, contrary to pop culture stereotype, sex is rarely the result of a spontaneous fit of passion.  You do have to make time for it.

Why then am I not on board with this?  There's a fine line between addressing gender differences and engaging in gender stereotyping.  A promise to review "the obvious needs of him and the hidden needs of her" feels like it's crossing the line.  Not every marriage can be saved by the Preacher telling her, "You need to put out more," and telling him, "You need to unload the dishwasher more."  No sex may be a symptom, not a cause, of a troubled marriage.

It's terribly gimmicky, and flatfooted mainliners like myself are prone to grouse.  But if there's sound medical, biblical, theological and psychological teaching behind the gimmick, then fine.  Trouble is, I can't tell from this vantage point, from outside the tent, so to speak.

Soft bigotry of low expectations

I don't have much to say about Lori Gottlieb's now famous advice to single women in their 30s to go ahead and settle for Mr. Good Enough except that, in recent memory, I've given the exact opposite advice to several single, female friends in their 30s.  In general, I don't think that there's anything wrong with maintaining high standards, and it may well be good for men if women don't subject them to "the soft bigotry of low expectations."

OK, one or two other comments.  Gottlieb seems to pit romantic sizzle against the mundane grease that makes long term relationships a well-oiled machine (like, Does he share the remote?)  But I thought that for women, the former equaled the latter.  For years now in premarital counseling sessions I've been quoting Hinkle's observations:  "You (looking at the groom-to-be) think that foreplay means a massage.  But she (gesturing to bride-to-be) thinks that unloading the dishwasher is foreplay."  Usually the bride-to-be giggles and nods enthusiastically while the groom looks chagrined or just clueless.  ("What's a dishwasher?")

So am I wrong?

I have a great marriage.  Not perfect, because there are no perfect marriages because there are no perfect people.  But it's a great marriage.  Plenty of romance, and plenty of friendship.  I can't help but think that this potentially exists for all people who don't have a God-given vocation for celibacy.  I could certainly be wrong.  But I hope I'm not.  And I hope that single women don't give up hope prematurely.