|
Response to Amara by Anandamaya das Posted May 22, 2008 In response to Amara dasa's article, "Gay Vaishnavas Welcome CA Supreme Court Ruling," following is an excerpt from my forthcoming book Vaishnava Viewpoint, copyright 2008 by Jeff Ratner, due to be released by August 1.
"Other issues may be commented on, also, from a Vaishnava viewpoint. The issue of homosexuality is certainly front and center on a regular basis. For Vaishnavas, one of our four prohibitions is no illicit sex, meaning no sex outside of marriage, and sex within marriage only for the purpose of procreation. This is done to minimize sensual entanglements in order to aid in maximizing spiritual attainment. Thus, for Vaishnavas, even recreational sex for heterosexuals is out of the question. For homosexuals, there is no sanction in any known religious system, unless certain self-styled contemporary religious "authorities" are willing to water down their teachings. Furthermore, because homosexuals cannot reproduce and can only gain adherents through exploitation, they incur negative karma in doing so. Having said all that, we can certainly respect the fact that homosexuals ultimately are jiva-atma, although their homosexuality is perhaps a denser form of entanglement (conditioning) within the material confines than that of heterosexuals. But there is still no restriction on who may practice Krishna consciousness, so if a homosexual person is interested, he is encouraged, although he should also be encouraged to either give up homosexual behavior altogether or, if unable to do so, remain loyal to one partner."
My hope is that ISKCON's new constitution will contain clear, carefully worded non-discrimination clauses to protect women and minorities. As president of GALVA (The Gay and Lesbian Vaishnava Association), my particular concern is with GLBTI-embodied devotees and temple guests.(1) We have already witnessed regrettable discrimination against women in our society's recent history and there should be no doubt that various minority groups experience similar types of discrimination.(2) Such unfair bodily prejudice, when it occurs, can be damaging not only to the individual involved but also to our movement's image and ISKCON as a whole. The purpose of this plea is not to instate anything new but rather to maintain Srila Prabhupada's original mood of all-inclusiveness, bodily transcendence and fairness to every member of ISKCON. This plea does NOT involve changing Srila Prabhupada's standards or definition of illicit sex. Nor does it involve a demand for "across-the-board" equal rights for things such as gay marriage. It is simply a request that GLBTI devotees--following all the rules and regulations of spiritual life--be treated fairly according to Srila Prabhupada's vision and example. Similarly, GLBTI devotees and guests who fall short of the standards are to be treated just as other devotees who fall short are. Any GLBTI devotee who strictly follows the rules and regulations set by Srila Prabhupada should be allowed to engage in all basic temple activities and receive privileges for which they qualify, just like anyone else.(3) There should be no doubt Srila Prabhupada set this example with his GLBTI disciples. Similarly, GLBTI devotees and guests who fall short of the standards should nevertheless be warmly invited to participate in other various ways while living outside the temple, just as Srila Prabhupada exemplified through his dealings with his fallen GBLTI disciples, or with friends and guests such as Allen Ginsberg. I applaud the GBC's efforts to correct discrimination against women but there are various minority groups whose grievances have yet to be addressed. At any given ISKCON center, for example, a GLBTI devotee or guest may be warmly welcomed, greeted coldly or even told in no uncertain terms to leave--simply because of their material body-type. There are many examples of this and ISKCON offers no explicit, uniform protections and guidelines in this regard. In my work with GALVA, I receive frequent complaints of discrimination and in many cases members join non-ISKCON groups because they are perceived, correctly or not, as more inclusive. One ISKCON website in particular even warns gay-embodied applicants not to bother applying for ashrama membership because they will be rejected automatically! I worry about the type of message this sends not only to new bhaktas but also to the community at large. If nothing else, it demonstrates the need for uniform standards facilitated through clear and specific non-discrimination clauses in our ISKCON Constitution.(4) I pray to Srila Prabhupada and Krsna that anti-discrimination protections for women and all minorities will be included in the new ISKCON Constitution, set forth by good leadership. Even a few strong statements in this regard will work wonders and help remind everyone of our most basic philosophy: "One who has knowledge of the soul and how the soul transmigrates from one body to another does not pay attention to the body, which is nothing but a covering dress. 'Panditah sama-darsinah.' Such a person sees the soul, which is part and parcel of the Supreme Lord. Therefore he is a 'sama-darsi,' a learned person." ("Srimad Bhagavatam" 9.1.33, purport) If my plea seems like overstating the obvious, you may be surprised. Many devotees, both new and old, require constant reminders and steadfast guidelines in this regard. Notes (1) - GLBTI = Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersexed. I personally prefer the umbrella term "third-gender" but defer to those who have problems with it. (2) - While the main subject matter of this article concentrates on eliminating discrimination against gender minorities (GLBTI persons), I encourage all minorities to speak up and express their own interest in this regard. (3) - These would include basic temple activities and privileges such as living in the ashrama, taking initiation, performing "seva," cooking, worshiping the Deity, leading kirtana, giving Bhagavatam class, assuming administrative roles, receiving standard benefits, and so on. (4) - I stress the words "clear" and "specific." History has shown that general non-discrimination clauses without specifically-named classes are ineffective and ignored at whim. The classes I would specifically suggest for protection are historically the most discriminated against and listed below:
|
Understanding Gay Devotees by Amara dasa Posted May 25, 2008 I commend Anandamaya prabhu's statement in his upcoming book acknowledging homosexual people as living beings (jiva-atma) who can practice Krishna consciousness like everybody else. I also appreciate his viewpoint that non-celibate gays should be encouraged to "remain loyal to one partner." These are the proper applications of our philosophy I expect all thoughtful Vaishnavas to make. I have a few suggestions regarding his yet-to-be-published book, however. First of all, the statement, "there is no sanction [for homosexuals] in any known religious system," isn't really accurate. Most of the world's indigenous religions accommodated homosexuality prior to foreign (i.e. Christian and Islamic) influence, including it in their rituals and in many cases allowing for same-sex marriage. This has been well documented among Native American, African, Polynesian and Asian indigenous religions. Even contemporary Hindu sects, such as the Aravani cult of Tamil Nadu, contain ritualized same-sex marriage as a part of their religious practice. While Vaishnavas may not agree with these beliefs, they are nonetheless "known religious systems." (For more information on this topic please see my article, "A Third Sex Around the World.") I also feel the book may be trivializing religious denominations which, after many years of serious deliberation and debate, have decided to allow same-sex marriage. For an increasing number of Christians, accepting their gay and lesbian brethren is more important and "Christ-like" than rejecting them over gender differences. I would hardly characterize the religious denominations that have adopted same-sex marriage, such as the United Church of Christ or the Church of Sweden, as "self-styled" or "watered down." Anandamaya's statement that homosexual people "can only gain adherents through exploitation" is perhaps the most questionable and likely to offend. Isn't Anandamaya aware that homosexuals are born, not recruited, and that gay-rights groups such as GALVA provide desperately needed support and friendship, not exploitation? Devotees commenting on this topic should understand that homosexuality is inborn or risk being viewed as ignorant. This is particularly true since our own Vedic scriptures describe it as such (see Sushruta Samhita, 3.2.38-45). Finally, I suggest removing the statement that homosexuality is "perhaps a denser form of entanglement (conditioning)." This comes across as speculative and condescending. Is a celibate gay man more densely entangled than a heterosexual rapist, simply because he was born with homosexual orientation? I think not. If anything, our scriptures declare that the most powerful entanglement in this world is the attraction between man and woman (see Srila Prabhupada's purports to Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.11.36 or 4.24.11, to cite just a few examples).
I don't know why devotees are so concerned over who is more entangled than whom, however. As Vaishnavas we are taught to view only ourselves as the most entangled, unqualified, fallen, etc. If everyone followed this simple rule there would be no more airs of superiority, homophobia, racism, sexism or anything else.
Gay Vaishnavas and their supporters were pleased with Thursday's ruling from the California Supreme Court legalizing same-sex marriage. Until one has suffered discrimination under the law it is difficult to understand just how oppressive such legalized discrimination can be to the human psyche. With this unnecessary burden now lifted, it will be much easier for gay and lesbian Californians, including those who are Hare Krsna devotees, to establish the committed, monogamous relationships so important to personal, societal and religious development. The California Supreme Court ruled that "in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation--like a person's race or gender--does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.... We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples." Amicus Briefs were filed by over forty religious organizations in support of the plaintiffs right to marry as same-sex couples. These included Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist and Hindu organizations, churches and leaders. GALVA (The Gay and Lesbian Vaishnava Organization) was pleased to sign on to the California Amicus Brief as a Hindu and Vaishnava organization in support of the legalization of same-sex marriage. Below are a few samples of the Amicus statements filed: The United Church of Christ: "Throughout our nation's history, the UCC's congregations and their members have often stood in solidarity with the marginalized and oppressed--calling for the abolition of slavery, for recognizing women's rights, for honoring mixed-race marriage, and for the full civil rights of all persons. Thus, a 1996 resolution of the Directorate of the United Church of Christ Office for Church in Society called for affirming 'equal marriage rights for same-sex couples who choose to marry and share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities and commitment of legally recognized marriage." The Union for Reform Judaism: "As Jews, we are taught in the very beginning of the Torah that God created humans in the Divine Image, and therefore diversity of creation represents the vastness of the Eternal. We oppose discrimination against all individuals, including gays and lesbians, for the stamp of the Divine is present in each and every human being. Thus, the Union unequivocally supports equal rights for all people, including the right to a civil marriage license." The Soka Gakkai International - USA (one of the largest Buddhist organizations in America): "The Buddha's teaching begins with the recognition of human diversity and in this spirit, the SGI-USA embraced conducting Buddhist wedding ceremonies for lesbian and gay couples in May 1995.... Showing such consideration for individuals clearly reflects the Daishonin's [Reverend Teacher's] spirit of non-discrimination and equality." The Unitarian Universalists: "Because Unitarian Universalists affirm the inherent worth and dignity of every person, and because marriage is held in honor among the blessings of life, the denomination's General Assembly resolved overwhelmingly in 1996 the 'support of legal recognition for marriage between members of the same sex,' urging its 'member congregations to proclaim the worth of marriage between any two committed persons and to make this position known in their home communities." The California Council of Churches: "Our commitment to religious liberty for all and equal protection under the law leads us to assert that the State may not rely on the views of particular religious sects as a basis for denying civil marriage licenses to same-gender couples."
The Al-Fatiha Foundation: "For the past four years, leaders within Al-Fatiha have performed marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples. Consistent with these Islamic principles, Al-Fatiha supports the rights of same-sex couples in the State of California and the United States to enter into marital relationships. Al-Fatiha supports this cause in the hopes of enlightening the world that Islam is a religion of tolerance and not hate, and that Allah loves his creation, no matter what their sexual orientation might be.
|
|