Indiana Equality

Mark's Demon

What follows is an essay detailing an event from my youth. I was raised Holiness Pentecostal, which will explain the conservativism and supernaturalism in the details of this story. I wish this view of homosexuality was gone, but it is not. Many conservative religionists still see homosexuality as being caused by the devil and his minions. By Rev. Andy Burnette

As children, my friends and I sang a song in Sunday School:

The devil is a sly old fox
If I could catch him I’d put him in a box
I’d lock the box and throw away the key
For all the mean tricks that he’s played on me

But none of the mean tricks the devil played on me came near the stunt he pulled on a teenager named Mark.

Mark was from out east, and that made us a little suspicious of him. His hair always laid the way he wanted it and his sense of fashion was out of the pages of GQ, but he didn’t seem otherwise impaired. He was friendly and outgoing and musically talented. He was happy, the kind of happy which implies a lack of serious religion. In hindsight, maybe that was evidence of his downfall.

The rumor around youth camp was that Mark was gay. He made the mistake of confiding in another teen, and before long the preachers and God and everybody knew. The preachers’ theory was that Mark’s homosexuality, like so many things we didn’t understand and therefore didn’t care for, was caused by demon possession.

The devil was slick, the men of God told us. He’ll perch, smiling, on your shoulder. He’ll convince you of your happiness. Then, when you least expect it, when you’ve begun to experiment with secular music and Ouija boards, when you haven’t prayed or read your Bible for a few months, the devil will snatch your soul. It happened all the time in Africa. We shouldn’t think we were exempt.

The damning part was, it was next to impossible for the one possessed to detect Satan’s presence. Slewfoot didn’t care what he had to do to get you. He’d even talk you into disbelieving his existence if he thought it would help.

One sure way to determine whether someone was devil possessed was to walk right up to the victim and say:

“You’re devil possessed.”

“I’m devil possessed?” the deluded sinner would say. “You’re crazy.”

Denial. That’s how you knew for sure the person’s soul belonged to the evil one. Recovery depended on an outside force, usually a preacher or a preacher’s wife, pointing and praying out the devil.

That’s just what Mark would need. The preacher giving the Wednesday night altar call decided it was time.

“Maybe somebody here tonight has been struggling with demon possession,” he said. “We’re going to sing one more verse of Just As I Am. This could be your last chance to get right with God.”

When the preacher reached the seventh ‘one more verse,’ suggesting that anyone in that building could die on our way home and where would we go, heaven or hell, Mark responded. He approached the wooden altar like a lamb being led to slaughter, understanding completely what was expected of him.

The preacher stopped his begging immediately, making it clear Mark had been the target of his impassioned appeal. People erupted from their pews and flooded the front of the sanctuary. They knew, too.

As Mark cried out to God for deliverance, one of the many preachers at the camp grabbed his forehead.

“Satan,” he shouted into Mark’s ear, “loose this young man in the name of Jesus!”

That was enough for me. I had come to the altar to be where the action was, but an exorcism wasn’t the kind of action I was looking for. I walked as casually as I could toward the back of the church and shook off the willies.

Exorcisms were dangerous, especially for those of us who were spiritual flyweights. Once, when I was 10 years old, a demon had been exorcised in a church I attended. I lingered close to the front of the church, hoping to see the woman’s head spin around.

One of the elders of the church told me I should get as far away as possible.

“Son, when a demon leaves somebody, it looks for somebody else to possess,” the man said. “You need to go sit in the back.”

He was implying I might not be in cahoots with God, which was the only thing that could keep the demons at bay. That and, evidently, being more than 10 feet from the demon’s exit point.
I wasn’t offended, though. The devil seemed to have more power than God himself. I wanted no part. While Mark’s demon was being prayed out, I sat in the back scared, thankful I wasn’t Godly enough to be up there with him.

After about an hour of praying, crying, and, I imagined, spitting and growling, Mark denounced his gayness that night, much to the joy of the hundred or so people around the altar. They applauded and cheered his pronouncement of instant heterosexuality.

The next day, Mark’s parents showed up to take him home early. I never saw him again. I heard he and his partner, James, live in a large Colonial home in Vermont.

We were right about one thing. The devil was indeed a sly old fox. Maybe he’s still pulling one over on Mark, out there believing he’s so content and fulfilled. In love.

But it sure feels like the joke was on us.

Copyright Rev. Andy Burnette, 2008

Mark's Demon

What follows is an essay detailing an event from my youth. I was raised Holiness Pentecostal, which will explain the conservativism and supernaturalism in the details of this story. I wish this view of homosexuality was gone, but it is not. Many conservative religionists still see homosexuality as being caused by the devil and his minions. By Rev. Andy Burnette

As children, my friends and I sang a song in Sunday School:

The devil is a sly old fox
If I could catch him I’d put him in a box
I’d lock the box and throw away the key
For all the mean tricks that he’s played on me

But none of the mean tricks the devil played on me came near the stunt he pulled on a teenager named Mark.

Mark was from out east, and that made us a little suspicious of him. His hair always laid the way he wanted it and his sense of fashion was out of the pages of GQ, but he didn’t seem otherwise impaired. He was friendly and outgoing and musically talented. He was happy, the kind of happy which implies a lack of serious religion. In hindsight, maybe that was evidence of his downfall.

The rumor around youth camp was that Mark was gay. He made the mistake of confiding in another teen, and before long the preachers and God and everybody knew. The preachers’ theory was that Mark’s homosexuality, like so many things we didn’t understand and therefore didn’t care for, was caused by demon possession.

The devil was slick, the men of God told us. He’ll perch, smiling, on your shoulder. He’ll convince you of your happiness. Then, when you least expect it, when you’ve begun to experiment with secular music and Ouija boards, when you haven’t prayed or read your Bible for a few months, the devil will snatch your soul. It happened all the time in Africa. We shouldn’t think we were exempt.

The damning part was, it was next to impossible for the one possessed to detect Satan’s presence. Slewfoot didn’t care what he had to do to get you. He’d even talk you into disbelieving his existence if he thought it would help.

One sure way to determine whether someone was devil possessed was to walk right up to the victim and say:

“You’re devil possessed.”

“I’m devil possessed?” the deluded sinner would say. “You’re crazy.”

Denial. That’s how you knew for sure the person’s soul belonged to the evil one. Recovery depended on an outside force, usually a preacher or a preacher’s wife, pointing and praying out the devil.

That’s just what Mark would need. The preacher giving the Wednesday night altar call decided it was time.

“Maybe somebody here tonight has been struggling with demon possession,” he said. “We’re going to sing one more verse of Just As I Am. This could be your last chance to get right with God.”

When the preacher reached the seventh ‘one more verse,’ suggesting that anyone in that building could die on our way home and where would we go, heaven or hell, Mark responded. He approached the wooden altar like a lamb being led to slaughter, understanding completely what was expected of him.

The preacher stopped his begging immediately, making it clear Mark had been the target of his impassioned appeal. People erupted from their pews and flooded the front of the sanctuary. They knew, too.

As Mark cried out to God for deliverance, one of the many preachers at the camp grabbed his forehead.

“Satan,” he shouted into Mark’s ear, “loose this young man in the name of Jesus!”

That was enough for me. I had come to the altar to be where the action was, but an exorcism wasn’t the kind of action I was looking for. I walked as casually as I could toward the back of the church and shook off the willies.

Exorcisms were dangerous, especially for those of us who were spiritual flyweights. Once, when I was 10 years old, a demon had been exorcised in a church I attended. I lingered close to the front of the church, hoping to see the woman’s head spin around.

One of the elders of the church told me I should get as far away as possible.

“Son, when a demon leaves somebody, it looks for somebody else to possess,” the man said. “You need to go sit in the back.”

He was implying I might not be in cahoots with God, which was the only thing that could keep the demons at bay. That and, evidently, being more than 10 feet from the demon’s exit point.
I wasn’t offended, though. The devil seemed to have more power than God himself. I wanted no part. While Mark’s demon was being prayed out, I sat in the back scared, thankful I wasn’t Godly enough to be up there with him.

After about an hour of praying, crying, and, I imagined, spitting and growling, Mark denounced his gayness that night, much to the joy of the hundred or so people around the altar. They applauded and cheered his pronouncement of instant heterosexuality.

The next day, Mark’s parents showed up to take him home early. I never saw him again. I heard he and his partner, James, live in a large Colonial home in Vermont.

We were right about one thing. The devil was indeed a sly old fox. Maybe he’s still pulling one over on Mark, out there believing he’s so content and fulfilled. In love.

But it sure feels like the joke was on us.

Copyright Rev. Andy Burnette, 2008

A Little Break - And How We're All Interconnected

by Don Sherfick

In thinking about what I might write about today, which is my usual “regular turn” on this site, I looked back and saw the almost constant and unbroken string of items, including my own, dealing with the general theme of SJR7 being alive until the last gavel descends on the current session of the Indiana General Assembly. There have been as many descriptions of close encounters of the fat lady kind than there are reasons why the proposed measure is discriminatory. Well, almost as many.

So I’ve decided to take a break from “Serial SJR7 Saturation” and say no more today about what even my own kids refer to as “Grandpa’s obsession”. Not a peep about how ambiguous the term “legal incidents of marriage” is. Absolute silence concerning “construed to require”. Eric Miller, Micah Clark……sorry, they get a break today here, too.

I got an E-Mail yesterday from my son Ed in Portland, Oregon, telling me I was a “national celebrity” of sorts. He and his partner James had been watching something on the gay-themed Logo channel, and happened to spot me at the IE-sponsored rally at the Indiana Statehouse on February 18th. He wants my autograph. And here I had thought that my signatures on all of those college tuition-room-and-board checks would have been more than enough! I guess one more won’t hurt.

His message reminded me of something important. The Hoosier GLBT community that Indiana Equality and other organizations provide a voice to doesn’t operate in a local vacuum. What happens here, whether it is working against a discriminatory constitutional amendment, advancing hate crimes legislation, or seeking protections in the area of civil rights legislation generally, is part of an overall fabric that unites us with our colleagues nationally and even internationally. In our own progress we are behind our counterparts in some states, but ahead of those in others. Sometimes when I see that folks in New Jersey are finding fault with civil unions as opposed to full marriage, I get a bit discouraged that they have the “luxury” of that discussion when in Indiana the fight is still against an amendment to keep alive the hope that our lawmakers could even have that discussion in the future. But that gets balanced by the knowledge that some things we've learned in our struggles about the way our opponents operate, some significant internal contradictions among themselves on interpretation, and the like, has been useful to our colleagues elsewhere. Although political and legislative scenarios vary from state to state, we are all in this “business of equality”, and our awareness of what is going on both within and without our state, and our sharing of our own experiences with non-Hoosiers remains very important.

I am pleased to see that, in things like the little Logo clip my son caught in Portland, we’ve gotten that attention. All Hoosiers working for full equality deserve that recognition.

Now, let’s see….where did I put that special autograph pen?

A Little Break - And How We're All Interconnected

by Don Sherfick

In thinking about what I might write about today, which is my usual “regular turn” on this site, I looked back and saw the almost constant and unbroken string of items, including my own, dealing with the general theme of SJR7 being alive until the last gavel descends on the current session of the Indiana General Assembly. There have been as many descriptions of close encounters of the fat lady kind than there are reasons why the proposed measure is discriminatory. Well, almost as many.

So I’ve decided to take a break from “Serial SJR7 Saturation” and say no more today about what even my own kids refer to as “Grandpa’s obsession”. Not a peep about how ambiguous the term “legal incidents of marriage” is. Absolute silence concerning “construed to require”. Eric Miller, Micah Clark……sorry, they get a break today here, too.

I got an E-Mail yesterday from my son Ed in Portland, Oregon, telling me I was a “national celebrity” of sorts. He and his partner James had been watching something on the gay-themed Logo channel, and happened to spot me at the IE-sponsored rally at the Indiana Statehouse on February 18th. He wants my autograph. And here I had thought that my signatures on all of those college tuition-room-and-board checks would have been more than enough! I guess one more won’t hurt.

His message reminded me of something important. The Hoosier GLBT community that Indiana Equality and other organizations provide a voice to doesn’t operate in a local vacuum. What happens here, whether it is working against a discriminatory constitutional amendment, advancing hate crimes legislation, or seeking protections in the area of civil rights legislation generally, is part of an overall fabric that unites us with our colleagues nationally and even internationally. In our own progress we are behind our counterparts in some states, but ahead of those in others. Sometimes when I see that folks in New Jersey are finding fault with civil unions as opposed to full marriage, I get a bit discouraged that they have the “luxury” of that discussion when in Indiana the fight is still against an amendment to keep alive the hope that our lawmakers could even have that discussion in the future. But that gets balanced by the knowledge that some things we've learned in our struggles about the way our opponents operate, some significant internal contradictions among themselves on interpretation, and the like, has been useful to our colleagues elsewhere. Although political and legislative scenarios vary from state to state, we are all in this “business of equality”, and our awareness of what is going on both within and without our state, and our sharing of our own experiences with non-Hoosiers remains very important.

I am pleased to see that, in things like the little Logo clip my son caught in Portland, we’ve gotten that attention. All Hoosiers working for full equality deserve that recognition.

Now, let’s see….where did I put that special autograph pen?

A Declining Performance

Of all of the ludicrous arguments that have been made in favor of the legislature passing SJR-7, the idea that Pelath and Bauer would be denying Hoosiers a choice in their laws is one of the most ridiculous. Let’s examine the issue a little closer. What would happen if the legislature fails to reauthorize SJR-7? Unfortunately, as we all know, the indefatigable Eric Miller will simply have it reintroduced the next cycle, where he will attempt once again to push it through two consecutive, separately elected legislatures. There certainly won’t be any gay marriages being performed between now and next session, as Indiana already has statutory bans on gay marriage. If Hoosiers were truly in favor of a constitutional ban on gay marriage (or whatever SJR-7 would ban) they would simply twice elect a legislature that would pass the amendment. If Hoosiers cared enough and wanted the amendment, they would have simply done that in 2006, actually.

The problem for Eric Miller is, of course, that Hoosiers don’t particularly want to constitutionally ban gay marriage. It’s neither a high priority nor an overwhelming sentiment. It happens to be a highly controversial and relatively unproductive topic upon which the majority of Hoosiers do not necessarily agree. Hoosiers certainly don’t need such a poorly constructed, poorly revised, and poorly presented piece of half-thought legal mess as SJR-7, regardless of political leaning. I would think that if one were going to write discrimination into a constitution, one would give it a little more….planning.

An even bigger panic to the folks who make big bucks off of this amendment is the realization that fewer and fewer people are willing to support any sort of a discriminatory amendment, well-written or not. The decline in support of such an amendment among Hoosiers shows no sign of reversing direction. As time goes on, the passage of any sort of amendment by Eric Miller & Co. becomes less and less likely. They know that they have the next few years to push this through, or they’re done. So, they’ll try their hardest this year. If they fail, they might even actually clean up some of the problems with the vague wording in SJR-7 (unfortunately, the problems with the intent would still remain). So, please be prepared for some high-pitched screeching over the next few years. The fat lady’s just warming up.

A Declining Performance

Of all of the ludicrous arguments that have been made in favor of the legislature passing SJR-7, the idea that Pelath and Bauer would be denying Hoosiers a choice in their laws is one of the most ridiculous. Let’s examine the issue a little closer. What would happen if the legislature fails to reauthorize SJR-7? Unfortunately, as we all know, the indefatigable Eric Miller will simply have it reintroduced the next cycle, where he will attempt once again to push it through two consecutive, separately elected legislatures. There certainly won’t be any gay marriages being performed between now and next session, as Indiana already has statutory bans on gay marriage. If Hoosiers were truly in favor of a constitutional ban on gay marriage (or whatever SJR-7 would ban) they would simply twice elect a legislature that would pass the amendment. If Hoosiers cared enough and wanted the amendment, they would have simply done that in 2006, actually.

The problem for Eric Miller is, of course, that Hoosiers don’t particularly want to constitutionally ban gay marriage. It’s neither a high priority nor an overwhelming sentiment. It happens to be a highly controversial and relatively unproductive topic upon which the majority of Hoosiers do not necessarily agree. Hoosiers certainly don’t need such a poorly constructed, poorly revised, and poorly presented piece of half-thought legal mess as SJR-7, regardless of political leaning. I would think that if one were going to write discrimination into a constitution, one would give it a little more….planning.

An even bigger panic to the folks who make big bucks off of this amendment is the realization that fewer and fewer people are willing to support any sort of a discriminatory amendment, well-written or not. The decline in support of such an amendment among Hoosiers shows no sign of reversing direction. As time goes on, the passage of any sort of amendment by Eric Miller & Co. becomes less and less likely. They know that they have the next few years to push this through, or they’re done. So, they’ll try their hardest this year. If they fail, they might even actually clean up some of the problems with the vague wording in SJR-7 (unfortunately, the problems with the intent would still remain). So, please be prepared for some high-pitched screeching over the next few years. The fat lady’s just warming up.

Is it Over?

What is the frequently asked question in Fort Wayne's GLBT community: "Is it over?"

As others have said, and as I have said ... SJR7 won't be over/dead until this legislative session is over. Political pressure can be brought to bear at any time between now and then. As the time gets short, we must continue to be ever vigilant to ensure this doesn't sneak up on without warning.

A week or so ago Brian Bosma was a phone-in guest on the Pat White Show (www.wowo.com). He started his interview talking about property tax reform and how the Dems are bastardizing the Governor's plan. Quickly thereafter the topic changed to gay marriage, and SJR7. Bosma was salivating at the opportunity to again trash the Dems, specifically Pelath and Bauer - especially Bauer. His complaint was that the Dems were "denying" Hoosiers the opportunity to decide the issue, and how horrible it is that their ability to cast their vote was being revoked by a rogue Democrat-dominated House. He further urged Pat White's listeners (many of whom are conservative - and potential followers of Miller/Clark et al) to call Bauer and Pelath and demand that they be given the right to vote on the issue.

The irony here is that something far more damaging - like property taxes, is denied to Hoosiers at a referendum. Seat belt laws were denied to Hoosiers at a referendum. Helmet laws were denied to Hoosiers at a referendum. Far more serious and damaging legsilation has been passed by our elected representatives "because they know what is good for us" without ever asking the issue be placed on a ballot. Yet, in its discriminatory format, SJR7 is being touted as something the citizens of Indiana should have the "right" to vote on. Why don't they get to vote on other issues?

If we are going to run to the media and cry because the political tide has turned, and a particular group is no longer in power, then we need to rethink the folks we send to Indianapolis. Always their driving force should be what is BEST for Indiana and those who live and work here. Put the personal agenda away. Stop the bible-thumping. Stop the name-calling. Stop the whining. Stop the complaining. Stop. Stop. Stop.

Again, the question...Is it over? I wouldn't bet on it! It isn't over until the session closes and this bill is left dead on the Senate Republicans doorstep. They want this bill on the ballot so badly in November that I would not rule out dirty political tactics right up to the moment the session ends. Therefore, keep your eyes and ears open. Watch what is happening at the statehouse. And above all, exercise your right to stay informed.

Is it Over?

What is the frequently asked question in Fort Wayne's GLBT community: "Is it over?"

As others have said, and as I have said ... SJR7 won't be over/dead until this legislative session is over. Political pressure can be brought to bear at any time between now and then. As the time gets short, we must continue to be ever vigilant to ensure this doesn't sneak up on without warning.

A week or so ago Brian Bosma was a phone-in guest on the Pat White Show (www.wowo.com). He started his interview talking about property tax reform and how the Dems are bastardizing the Governor's plan. Quickly thereafter the topic changed to gay marriage, and SJR7. Bosma was salivating at the opportunity to again trash the Dems, specifically Pelath and Bauer - especially Bauer. His complaint was that the Dems were "denying" Hoosiers the opportunity to decide the issue, and how horrible it is that their ability to cast their vote was being revoked by a rogue Democrat-dominated House. He further urged Pat White's listeners (many of whom are conservative - and potential followers of Miller/Clark et al) to call Bauer and Pelath and demand that they be given the right to vote on the issue.

The irony here is that something far more damaging - like property taxes, is denied to Hoosiers at a referendum. Seat belt laws were denied to Hoosiers at a referendum. Helmet laws were denied to Hoosiers at a referendum. Far more serious and damaging legsilation has been passed by our elected representatives "because they know what is good for us" without ever asking the issue be placed on a ballot. Yet, in its discriminatory format, SJR7 is being touted as something the citizens of Indiana should have the "right" to vote on. Why don't they get to vote on other issues?

If we are going to run to the media and cry because the political tide has turned, and a particular group is no longer in power, then we need to rethink the folks we send to Indianapolis. Always their driving force should be what is BEST for Indiana and those who live and work here. Put the personal agenda away. Stop the bible-thumping. Stop the name-calling. Stop the whining. Stop the complaining. Stop. Stop. Stop.

Again, the question...Is it over? I wouldn't bet on it! It isn't over until the session closes and this bill is left dead on the Senate Republicans doorstep. They want this bill on the ballot so badly in November that I would not rule out dirty political tactics right up to the moment the session ends. Therefore, keep your eyes and ears open. Watch what is happening at the statehouse. And above all, exercise your right to stay informed.

My Letter to the Editor

In response to a couple of local letters to the editor, I responded with the following. Maybe you will be inspired as well:

I support House Rules Committee Chair Scott Pelath's decision to stop
the dangerous attempt to amend Indiana's Bill of Rights through Senate Joint Resolution 7.

The media refers to this as the gay (or same-sex) marriage amendment, but that could not be further from the truth. This amendment would affect all unmarried couples, which has proven devastating to battered unmarried women (Ohio) and domestic partner benefits(Michigan). The ambiguous language in Indiana's version is even more likely to end up in the court system, the exact venue not desired by the proponents.

Furthermore, the 56 Hoosier legal scholars who oppose the amendment know more
about Indiana law than SJR7's sponsor Senator Brandt Hershman can imagine. If you can get the Senator to be able to explain what "legal incidents of marriage" are, then you'll have done more than the whole General Assembly has accomplished.

SJR7 is nothing more than a political wedge issue for certain politicians and a cash cow for Eric Miller's minions. Luckily, men like Pelath smell a rat when they find one. Gay marriage is illegal in Indiana and will remain so, regardless of these actions.

Maybe they can find time now to deal with Indiana's real priorities -- jobs and taxes.

My Letter to the Editor

In response to a couple of local letters to the editor, I responded with the following. Maybe you will be inspired as well:

I support House Rules Committee Chair Scott Pelath's decision to stop
the dangerous attempt to amend Indiana's Bill of Rights through Senate Joint Resolution 7.

The media refers to this as the gay (or same-sex) marriage amendment, but that could not be further from the truth. This amendment would affect all unmarried couples, which has proven devastating to battered unmarried women (Ohio) and domestic partner benefits(Michigan). The ambiguous language in Indiana's version is even more likely to end up in the court system, the exact venue not desired by the proponents.

Furthermore, the 56 Hoosier legal scholars who oppose the amendment know more
about Indiana law than SJR7's sponsor Senator Brandt Hershman can imagine. If you can get the Senator to be able to explain what "legal incidents of marriage" are, then you'll have done more than the whole General Assembly has accomplished.

SJR7 is nothing more than a political wedge issue for certain politicians and a cash cow for Eric Miller's minions. Luckily, men like Pelath smell a rat when they find one. Gay marriage is illegal in Indiana and will remain so, regardless of these actions.

Maybe they can find time now to deal with Indiana's real priorities -- jobs and taxes.