Well, it shouldn't be to difficult to get the church involved in LGBT issues. We are all either in the pulpits or directing the choirs anyway.

It still suggests THEOCRACY (God as head of government, a skygod King) not DEMOCRACY (people as head of government who elect a President, and as citizens have the choice not to believe in Abrahamic myths of the Middle East)..Most LGBT's that I know are not faith based, nor do they intend to be. They have educations.

If HRC wants to improve it's organization, they need to support gay candidates, rather than giving money to religious right Republican Candidates. Now I see why they do that. HRC is full of Jesus freaks.

I'll keep my current religious views: Flying saucers, Reggie Bush, Thierry Henry. Yup,religiously!!

I'm sure I'll hear the usual tired and trite calls of "Log Cabinette!" but here goes…

(1) I am a member of HRC, and have subscribed to the Religion & Faith newsletter for years. Believe it or not, there are no small number of LGBT who consider themselves to be spiritual. At no time have I ever heard or read anything that came from HRC that would lead me to think that they are populated with "Jesus freaks."

(2) Contributing to both Democratic and Republican candidates is simply the best way to ensure that your agenda is paid attention to. Politically aware people, especially those in the business community, have known this for years. For how "cutting edge" we like to think we are as a community, you'd think most of us would know this by now.

(3) Educating and supporting clergy in LGBT issues is NOT the same as promoting theocracy. Its been my experience that most clergy are very intelligent and well-educated, and don't need much convincing to come around to our point of view. They simply need to be made aware! When we educate clergy to our issues and support them in their ministries, we gain allies who are able to change the hearts and minds of their congregants; usually people who are first in line to rally against us.

Honestly, sometimes I just don't understand the rabidness with with many LGBT people outright reject spirituality of any kind, in any form. What makes that stance any better than the small-minded, mean-spirited, knee-jerk reactionism of the religionists?

Wait, let's see if I got this right. Mel White sat in Jerry Falwell's church for years, and didn't change one mind to be pro gay. Fundamental protestant religions and the Catholic church, the two biggest voting blocs do not allow for change of church dogma, especially regarding homosexuality. The black churches are extremely homophobic, and have a warped view about LGBT's corrupting their young men, women and famlies. Farrakhan did not draw 500 thousand, with no gays allowed, for nothing. His million man march was to strengthen the family (sans us queers).
I met the HRC faith based board at the Gill Foundation conference, and was not impressed.
They are mainly well meaning people stuck in childhood indoctrination of their parents in various churches, but really have no power to implement change.
Bishop Robinson is a good speaker, but he still keeps the traditional bible in front of him when he preaches, the King James version that contains all the homophobic passages.
As long as it is written, and people passionately believe it is the infallable word of god, no amount of modern thought supported by science is going to matter. The Episcopal Church has long been liberal, so he really hasn't changed minds. He believes in god because his mother told him their was one when he was a small child. He made a career out of it, but is it a good path for LGBT'S to follow, a religion based in superstition and division.

Fundamental Protestants and the Catholic Church are not the two largest voting blocs; senior citizens and middle-class white males are.

Conversely, PRA and PublicEye.org have shown conclusively that even Evangelical Christians don't vote as a "bloc," as most think they do.

Your reliance on unfounded and unproven statements, presumably from your own perspective, leave me suspecting your claim of meeting anyone within HRC. If you'll postulate opinion and vective as fact to counterpoint in a debate, you're no better than the fundies using the writings of tent-dwelling nomads from 6,000 years ago as "proof" that God hates homosexuals.

And, did I mention, your reply post was so convoluted and poorly written that I'm barely sure what the point is?

I was referring to religious voting blocs. Homophobia, like it or not in the Bible. To claim that the holy spirit of Jesus loves gays is ridiculous. There is nothing written that Jesus mentioned homosexuality. For LGBT's to study the Bible that condemns us is tantamount to Jews studying Mein Kampf. Theology is not a field of study. Mythology is and so is history of Regligion. Christian theology is a relic of the past.

LGBT's of faith should organize behind the Unitarian Universalists. You can be an atheist like me and still be a happy churchgoer beliving in reason and science. No religious , invisible men that are not there, no church dogma, no belief in the supernatural that isn't there. Jefferson, Emerson, Thoreau and others were UU's. Good company.

I disagree. LGBT's of faith should organize behind whatever faith their conscience guides them to. And, they should receive the full support of the LGBT brothers and sisters.

Take your vitriolic rejection and hatred of religion out on someone else. Just becuase you reject spirituality ONLY for the fact that it has rejected YOU (or, so you see it) is no reason to de facto call other LGBT persons of faith ignorant and superstitious. Your arrogance is appalling.