Proposition 8, Gay Marriage and the Sikh faith
(Please note: the opinions expressed in this essay are strictly the personal views of the author and do not in any way reflect upon the ministry of Sikh Dharma International)
Last week, the California State Supreme Court upheld a voter amendment, Proposition 8, which banned same-sex unions in the state. Ever since the amendment was passed by voters last November, there has been a lot of discussion about protecting the idea of traditional marriage versus the US Constitution’s promise of equal rights for all people under the law. For the most part, when this issue of gay marriage has come up in my presence, I have kept relatively quiet – partly because I haven’t wanted to “out” myself. In my early 20’s, I was a partner in a non-traditional marriage. My live-in boyfriend turned husband was bi-sexual. We had an agreement that he was free to explore his bi-sexuality within the confines of our relationship, as long as he told me where he was and what time he would be home. Naturally, out of courtesy, the agreement extended both ways. During that period of my life, I was blessed to be part of a wonderful gay and bi-sexual community. I wanted to fit in and belong. Yet I discovered that, basically, I was straight and instinctively monogamous. So the agreement was theoretical on my side. We lived together in this non-traditional way for 3 years before deciding to get married, and during that time, I did my best to support his process of understanding his own sexual identity.
Looking back, perhaps it was inevitable that the relationship would fail. Nine months after we got non-traditionally married, we went through a very traditional divorce. Not too long after, he met a woman from California who was bi-sexual for real and they have been in a non-traditional, open relationship ever since. He has sworn that I was his first and last foray into the realm of marriage. We loved each other then and still care deeply about each other now. How many people can say that their former husband sent them a beautiful gift on what would have been their ten-year anniversary? Yet, he did just that. My relationship with this man taught me a great lesson: that just because you love someone, it doesn’t mean you will spend the rest of your life with that person.
So when people ask me: Do you support gay marriage? the first question that comes to my mind is, “What type of marriage are you talking about?” One of the fundamental issues in this discussion is whether or not the institution of marriage is an appropriate vehicle for non-traditional relationships.
Thorny and Complicated Issue
The reason this issue becomes so difficult to unravel is that there are two distinct and separate aspects to the institution of marriage. One aspect is related to property, taxes, inheritance, and protecting children who are born or adopted by a couple. This aspect of marriage is governed by state and federal law. The courts are being asked to decide to whom those laws apply. The US Constitution guarantees equal rights for all people. Logically speaking, it is not such a big leap to see that “equality” means everyone – gay, straight, bi, whoever. People who decide to be together as a couple ideally would be treated equally under the law regardless of gender.
It is the second aspect of the institution of marriage that is making all of this much more difficult. The second aspect is spiritual. Unless someone is atheist or agnostic, marriage involves the blessing of the union by a Higher Power. For many people, what defines marriage is a spiritual and religious issue, not simply a legal one. What is the meaning of marriage? What is its purpose? What moral and spiritual duties and responsibilities do partners have towards one another when they are married?
Because of the separation of church and state in the US Constitution, the spiritual aspect of marriage is under the domain of the respective congregations and spiritual communities in this country. The US Bill of Rights promises freedom of religion. So ideally every religious definition of marriage would be protected. Many congregations consider it immoral for people of the same sex to engage in sexual activity. Therefore, same-sex marriage is completely out of the question. Yet, for a growing number of congregations and spiritual communities, there is no moral problem with people of the same sex engaging in sexual activity. Therefore, marriage between people of the same sex is absolutely acceptable. Theoretically, under the US Constitution, all of these beliefs are equally protected.
What the actions by the Supreme Court in California have done is to extend the power of the government beyond the concerns of property and protecting minors, into the much more subtle realm of spirituality. The court ruling has legitimized a definition of marriage that aligns with the religious beliefs of some congregations. Yet by the nature of that definition, it has made the beliefs of other congregations illegal.
This situation becomes even more complicated by the fact that communities from the same faith traditions are divided amongst themselves about the morality of same-sex unions. Many faith communities have either a very public or a very private fight going on about this subject. And the reason is fairly straight-forward. Homosexuality is part of the human condition. Wherever there is a community of people, there will be a percentage of them that are gay. This is not a Christian issue, a Sikh issue, a Muslim issue, a Jewish issue, a Buddhist issue, a Hindu issue, a Baha’i issue or a Pagan issue. This is everybody’s issue.
Proposition 8 and the ruling by the California Supreme Court has taken what is, for many people, an issue of faith and has made secular judges the arbitrators of the debate. The fact that these religious differences are being played out in a court of law to me is a sign that we leaders within faith communities are not doing our jobs properly. If we had the courage to create dialogue within our communities about homosexuality and marriage, and try to work with all perspectives to find common ground, perhaps the time and money spent in court fights could be going to more worthy causes. I could be wrong about this, but it seems there is a very real shadow energy in Proposition 8. It is the shadow that says, “I am afraid to engage the issue of spirituality and homosexuality in my own life. So I will hide behind the word ‘tradition’ and avoid the deep conversation about God and human life that this issue provokes.”
How to Dialogue about this within the Sikh community
Fifteen years after my divorce from my first husband, I have been blessed to become a minister in the Sikh community. I love my adopted faith. I find it incredibly universal, tolerant and powerful. Yet, at times there is a profound divergence between what I have understood from studying the teachings of the Sikh Gurus, and what I see practiced in the culture of the Sikh community. The issue of homosexuality is one of these areas where I feel the strain of this contradiction.
The highest authorities of the Sikh tradition in India are adamantly opposed to same-sex unions on moral grounds. When people ask me, as a minister, if I would ever defy that authority and support a gay couple getting married in a Gurdwara (Sikh Temple), I take a deep breath. In my heart, I keep looking for common ground. Many years ago, Yogi Bhajan said to me, “Destroying a structure is not serving a structure.” Is there a way for this issue to be handled so that it doesn’t result in undermining the religious structure within the Sikh community nor does it result in gay Sikhs being ostracized? I disagree with the position that there is something morally wrong with same-sex unions. The Sikh Gurus taught that everything and everyone is created by the One Creator for a purpose. Everything that happens is within hukam – is within the Divine Will and the Divine Plan. So how can homosexuality be “wrong” when the Divine created it? It is my personal belief that there is no moral problem with same sex unions from the perspective of Gurbani (the Guru’s teachings.) But I also acknowledge that this prejudice exists within our community. So rather than answer the question of whether or not I would officiate at a gay marriage in a Sikh Gurdwara, I feel the first step is to have us within the Sikh community ask ourselves some deeper questions about our faith, and the purpose of marriage.
Gay people in the Sikh community are often asked to choose between these two identities: are you a Sikh? Or are you gay? Some few brave ones embrace both worlds. But many people under the pressure of their families or their communities make a choice. They either try to suppress their gay identity and fit in. Or they leave the Sikh faith altogether. The first question is: can we, as community members, create a supportive environment where someone who is gay does not feel pressured to make this kind of a choice?
Being a Sikh is a special, spiritual identity. It is a universal path, accepting and loving; it is the path of a spiritual warrior – defending those who cannot defend themselves; it is a path of service and prosperity – working by the sweat of your brow and sharing what you have earned with others. It is a path of profound prayer and meditation.
Being gay is also a special identity. It means finding love, companionship, partnership and a life journey with someone of the same sex. It means forever being a minority and having the unique privilege of facing the challenges and prejudices that come with the territory. It takes tremendous heart and courage to be openly gay in a world where many people wish that homosexuality would go away.
It is a blessing to be Sikh. And if we take the words of the Sikh Gurus to heart, being gay is hukam. It is something written for the person by the Creator before he or she was even born. The Sikh faith was founded on including everyone, even the lowest castes in India. So in the 21st century, do we as a community chose to make homosexuality a barrier to being a Sikh? Can the four doors of our most sacred temple, the Harimander Sahib in Amritsar, be open to all; but not be open to people who are gay?
Our first dialogue needs to be whether or not we as a community can acknowledge that every person has the right to be a Sikh, and sexual orientation is no limitation. Gays Sikhs have always and shall always exist. They are part of us. Can we support them? Can we accept them so they can embrace their identity fully and live with dignity as members of the Guru’s Court?
The second issue about marriage is much more subtle for me.
To my mind there, is a difference between getting married under US law and getting married in a Sikh Gurdwara, in the court of the Guru. US law governs the most basic property agreements between partners, and the US Constitution promises equality for all people. For the sake of honoring the Constitution, recognizing gay marriage would be a wonderfully healthy affirmation of the practice of equality that this country is founded upon.
On the other hand, the Sikh marriage ceremony, the Lavan, is a binding spiritual contract between two souls. It is a significant spiritual and moral commitment founded in a clear faith tradition. Ideally, the Sikh marriage is a life-long promise that two people will serve each other, meditate together, live in the purity of their own consciousness, and accept the guidance of the Shabad Guru throughout their lives. It is a decision to create the Grisht Ashram – the home that serves as a spiritual center for the community. The Sikh marriage is about two souls becoming one. It is to face the tests and challenges of life together, the partners promising to let their heads roll but not let their hands go. In the Sikh faith, marriage is the highest spiritual practice. It is the highest yoga. For in marriage, we face our darkest demons, our deepest shadows, and through the Guru’s guidance and grace, emerge victorious.
The Sikh marriage is not the realm for sexual promiscuity. It is not the foundation for mindlessly pursuing wealth, status and power. It is not for the sole purpose of having children, though children may come as a result. A Sikh marriage is the way that two people can serve each other and support each other to cultivate virtue, clear their karmas, and merge into the Deathless Light of Divinity that lives in each of our hearts. It is a commitment to the Guru, to each other, to the Creator and to the community to consciously grow in your spiritual practice and your capacity for service. This kind of marriage is the foundation upon which the future of the faith is built.
In this sense, for any couple, gay or straight, to be married in front of the Guru in the Gurdwara is a deep and profound commitment. This commitment is not to be entered into lightly. It has become easy for some couples to get married in front of the Guru without understanding what this ceremony is about. In some cases, the Sikh marriage has become a mere formality and ritual, and in that, the true meaning of the Lavan has gotten lost. So when someone talks about gay marriage in a Gurdwara, my first instinct is to say – let those who value the Lavan get married in the Gurdwara. Let those who do not want to live that discipline and commitment get married somewhere else. To me, this conversation about what the Lavan means and what marriage means to our faith as a whole is a precursor conversation to whether or not gay people “should be allowed” to get married in the Temple. The depth, power and importance of that commitment needs to be fully understood by everyone. Then we can see which couples feel called to live that commitment, and which ones do not.
The issue of gay marriage reflects a deeper dynamic in the world – the question of how the human family is going to live together in peace. It is my prayer that those who are called to be custodians of their respective spiritual communities will use this moment in history as an opportunity to dialogue about the principles of their faiths. A conscious and loving dialogue that involves deep listening on all sides and includes all voices. It is my hope that such a dialogue will strengthen the relationship we have with our Creator, and broaden our understanding about how to live with love and good will towards all of our brothers and sisters on the earth.
The answer to the question of whether or not I would personally officiate at a gay wedding inside of a Sikh Gurdwara is this: yes I will do it when doing so will not inflame or divide community members against each other. And I am willing to commit to working so that such a day can come. When that day happens, it will come because we have understood the teachings of the Sikh Gurus in a new way, and renewed our relationship with the purpose and meaning of the Sikh marriage. Then those beautiful souls who have the unique privilege of being Sikh and being gay can stand with honor and respect as equals in the Guru’s court.
If I have offended anyone with this essay, please know this was not written for anyone to take offense.
With Divine Light.
Yours sincerely and humbly,
Ek Ong Kaar Kaur Khalsa
Last week, the California State Supreme Court upheld a voter amendment, Proposition 8, which banned same-sex unions in the state. Ever since the amendment was passed by voters last November, there has been a lot of discussion about protecting the idea of traditional marriage versus the US Constitution’s promise of equal rights for all people under the law. For the most part, when this issue of gay marriage has come up in my presence, I have kept relatively quiet – partly because I haven’t wanted to “out” myself. In my early 20’s, I was a partner in a non-traditional marriage. My live-in boyfriend turned husband was bi-sexual. We had an agreement that he was free to explore his bi-sexuality within the confines of our relationship, as long as he told me where he was and what time he would be home. Naturally, out of courtesy, the agreement extended both ways. During that period of my life, I was blessed to be part of a wonderful gay and bi-sexual community. I wanted to fit in and belong. Yet I discovered that, basically, I was straight and instinctively monogamous. So the agreement was theoretical on my side. We lived together in this non-traditional way for 3 years before deciding to get married, and during that time, I did my best to support his process of understanding his own sexual identity.
Looking back, perhaps it was inevitable that the relationship would fail. Nine months after we got non-traditionally married, we went through a very traditional divorce. Not too long after, he met a woman from California who was bi-sexual for real and they have been in a non-traditional, open relationship ever since. He has sworn that I was his first and last foray into the realm of marriage. We loved each other then and still care deeply about each other now. How many people can say that their former husband sent them a beautiful gift on what would have been their ten-year anniversary? Yet, he did just that. My relationship with this man taught me a great lesson: that just because you love someone, it doesn’t mean you will spend the rest of your life with that person.
So when people ask me: Do you support gay marriage? the first question that comes to my mind is, “What type of marriage are you talking about?” One of the fundamental issues in this discussion is whether or not the institution of marriage is an appropriate vehicle for non-traditional relationships.
Thorny and Complicated Issue
The reason this issue becomes so difficult to unravel is that there are two distinct and separate aspects to the institution of marriage. One aspect is related to property, taxes, inheritance, and protecting children who are born or adopted by a couple. This aspect of marriage is governed by state and federal law. The courts are being asked to decide to whom those laws apply. The US Constitution guarantees equal rights for all people. Logically speaking, it is not such a big leap to see that “equality” means everyone – gay, straight, bi, whoever. People who decide to be together as a couple ideally would be treated equally under the law regardless of gender.
It is the second aspect of the institution of marriage that is making all of this much more difficult. The second aspect is spiritual. Unless someone is atheist or agnostic, marriage involves the blessing of the union by a Higher Power. For many people, what defines marriage is a spiritual and religious issue, not simply a legal one. What is the meaning of marriage? What is its purpose? What moral and spiritual duties and responsibilities do partners have towards one another when they are married?
Because of the separation of church and state in the US Constitution, the spiritual aspect of marriage is under the domain of the respective congregations and spiritual communities in this country. The US Bill of Rights promises freedom of religion. So ideally every religious definition of marriage would be protected. Many congregations consider it immoral for people of the same sex to engage in sexual activity. Therefore, same-sex marriage is completely out of the question. Yet, for a growing number of congregations and spiritual communities, there is no moral problem with people of the same sex engaging in sexual activity. Therefore, marriage between people of the same sex is absolutely acceptable. Theoretically, under the US Constitution, all of these beliefs are equally protected.
What the actions by the Supreme Court in California have done is to extend the power of the government beyond the concerns of property and protecting minors, into the much more subtle realm of spirituality. The court ruling has legitimized a definition of marriage that aligns with the religious beliefs of some congregations. Yet by the nature of that definition, it has made the beliefs of other congregations illegal.
This situation becomes even more complicated by the fact that communities from the same faith traditions are divided amongst themselves about the morality of same-sex unions. Many faith communities have either a very public or a very private fight going on about this subject. And the reason is fairly straight-forward. Homosexuality is part of the human condition. Wherever there is a community of people, there will be a percentage of them that are gay. This is not a Christian issue, a Sikh issue, a Muslim issue, a Jewish issue, a Buddhist issue, a Hindu issue, a Baha’i issue or a Pagan issue. This is everybody’s issue.
Proposition 8 and the ruling by the California Supreme Court has taken what is, for many people, an issue of faith and has made secular judges the arbitrators of the debate. The fact that these religious differences are being played out in a court of law to me is a sign that we leaders within faith communities are not doing our jobs properly. If we had the courage to create dialogue within our communities about homosexuality and marriage, and try to work with all perspectives to find common ground, perhaps the time and money spent in court fights could be going to more worthy causes. I could be wrong about this, but it seems there is a very real shadow energy in Proposition 8. It is the shadow that says, “I am afraid to engage the issue of spirituality and homosexuality in my own life. So I will hide behind the word ‘tradition’ and avoid the deep conversation about God and human life that this issue provokes.”
How to Dialogue about this within the Sikh community
Fifteen years after my divorce from my first husband, I have been blessed to become a minister in the Sikh community. I love my adopted faith. I find it incredibly universal, tolerant and powerful. Yet, at times there is a profound divergence between what I have understood from studying the teachings of the Sikh Gurus, and what I see practiced in the culture of the Sikh community. The issue of homosexuality is one of these areas where I feel the strain of this contradiction.
The highest authorities of the Sikh tradition in India are adamantly opposed to same-sex unions on moral grounds. When people ask me, as a minister, if I would ever defy that authority and support a gay couple getting married in a Gurdwara (Sikh Temple), I take a deep breath. In my heart, I keep looking for common ground. Many years ago, Yogi Bhajan said to me, “Destroying a structure is not serving a structure.” Is there a way for this issue to be handled so that it doesn’t result in undermining the religious structure within the Sikh community nor does it result in gay Sikhs being ostracized? I disagree with the position that there is something morally wrong with same-sex unions. The Sikh Gurus taught that everything and everyone is created by the One Creator for a purpose. Everything that happens is within hukam – is within the Divine Will and the Divine Plan. So how can homosexuality be “wrong” when the Divine created it? It is my personal belief that there is no moral problem with same sex unions from the perspective of Gurbani (the Guru’s teachings.) But I also acknowledge that this prejudice exists within our community. So rather than answer the question of whether or not I would officiate at a gay marriage in a Sikh Gurdwara, I feel the first step is to have us within the Sikh community ask ourselves some deeper questions about our faith, and the purpose of marriage.
Gay people in the Sikh community are often asked to choose between these two identities: are you a Sikh? Or are you gay? Some few brave ones embrace both worlds. But many people under the pressure of their families or their communities make a choice. They either try to suppress their gay identity and fit in. Or they leave the Sikh faith altogether. The first question is: can we, as community members, create a supportive environment where someone who is gay does not feel pressured to make this kind of a choice?
Being a Sikh is a special, spiritual identity. It is a universal path, accepting and loving; it is the path of a spiritual warrior – defending those who cannot defend themselves; it is a path of service and prosperity – working by the sweat of your brow and sharing what you have earned with others. It is a path of profound prayer and meditation.
Being gay is also a special identity. It means finding love, companionship, partnership and a life journey with someone of the same sex. It means forever being a minority and having the unique privilege of facing the challenges and prejudices that come with the territory. It takes tremendous heart and courage to be openly gay in a world where many people wish that homosexuality would go away.
It is a blessing to be Sikh. And if we take the words of the Sikh Gurus to heart, being gay is hukam. It is something written for the person by the Creator before he or she was even born. The Sikh faith was founded on including everyone, even the lowest castes in India. So in the 21st century, do we as a community chose to make homosexuality a barrier to being a Sikh? Can the four doors of our most sacred temple, the Harimander Sahib in Amritsar, be open to all; but not be open to people who are gay?
Our first dialogue needs to be whether or not we as a community can acknowledge that every person has the right to be a Sikh, and sexual orientation is no limitation. Gays Sikhs have always and shall always exist. They are part of us. Can we support them? Can we accept them so they can embrace their identity fully and live with dignity as members of the Guru’s Court?
The second issue about marriage is much more subtle for me.
To my mind there, is a difference between getting married under US law and getting married in a Sikh Gurdwara, in the court of the Guru. US law governs the most basic property agreements between partners, and the US Constitution promises equality for all people. For the sake of honoring the Constitution, recognizing gay marriage would be a wonderfully healthy affirmation of the practice of equality that this country is founded upon.
On the other hand, the Sikh marriage ceremony, the Lavan, is a binding spiritual contract between two souls. It is a significant spiritual and moral commitment founded in a clear faith tradition. Ideally, the Sikh marriage is a life-long promise that two people will serve each other, meditate together, live in the purity of their own consciousness, and accept the guidance of the Shabad Guru throughout their lives. It is a decision to create the Grisht Ashram – the home that serves as a spiritual center for the community. The Sikh marriage is about two souls becoming one. It is to face the tests and challenges of life together, the partners promising to let their heads roll but not let their hands go. In the Sikh faith, marriage is the highest spiritual practice. It is the highest yoga. For in marriage, we face our darkest demons, our deepest shadows, and through the Guru’s guidance and grace, emerge victorious.
The Sikh marriage is not the realm for sexual promiscuity. It is not the foundation for mindlessly pursuing wealth, status and power. It is not for the sole purpose of having children, though children may come as a result. A Sikh marriage is the way that two people can serve each other and support each other to cultivate virtue, clear their karmas, and merge into the Deathless Light of Divinity that lives in each of our hearts. It is a commitment to the Guru, to each other, to the Creator and to the community to consciously grow in your spiritual practice and your capacity for service. This kind of marriage is the foundation upon which the future of the faith is built.
In this sense, for any couple, gay or straight, to be married in front of the Guru in the Gurdwara is a deep and profound commitment. This commitment is not to be entered into lightly. It has become easy for some couples to get married in front of the Guru without understanding what this ceremony is about. In some cases, the Sikh marriage has become a mere formality and ritual, and in that, the true meaning of the Lavan has gotten lost. So when someone talks about gay marriage in a Gurdwara, my first instinct is to say – let those who value the Lavan get married in the Gurdwara. Let those who do not want to live that discipline and commitment get married somewhere else. To me, this conversation about what the Lavan means and what marriage means to our faith as a whole is a precursor conversation to whether or not gay people “should be allowed” to get married in the Temple. The depth, power and importance of that commitment needs to be fully understood by everyone. Then we can see which couples feel called to live that commitment, and which ones do not.
The issue of gay marriage reflects a deeper dynamic in the world – the question of how the human family is going to live together in peace. It is my prayer that those who are called to be custodians of their respective spiritual communities will use this moment in history as an opportunity to dialogue about the principles of their faiths. A conscious and loving dialogue that involves deep listening on all sides and includes all voices. It is my hope that such a dialogue will strengthen the relationship we have with our Creator, and broaden our understanding about how to live with love and good will towards all of our brothers and sisters on the earth.
The answer to the question of whether or not I would personally officiate at a gay wedding inside of a Sikh Gurdwara is this: yes I will do it when doing so will not inflame or divide community members against each other. And I am willing to commit to working so that such a day can come. When that day happens, it will come because we have understood the teachings of the Sikh Gurus in a new way, and renewed our relationship with the purpose and meaning of the Sikh marriage. Then those beautiful souls who have the unique privilege of being Sikh and being gay can stand with honor and respect as equals in the Guru’s court.
If I have offended anyone with this essay, please know this was not written for anyone to take offense.
With Divine Light.
Yours sincerely and humbly,
Ek Ong Kaar Kaur Khalsa
posted by Ek Ong Kaar Kaur | 2:51 PM
22 Comments:
I think in order to maintain the principles of equality and freedom laid out in the Constitution, the government needs to give equal recognition to all mutually consensual unions, including same-sex and polygamous ones.
I think we got where we are now by ignoring or outright forbidding anything that didn't fit with mainstream practices, and we are at a tricky place where the government gives special consideration to arrangements that are actually very closely tied to religious practices. To determine rational, non-secular government policies, we need to identify the goals of property, tax, and other laws, and define the conditions that specific rules apply to without including any sort of religious conditions.
As Sikhs, I don't know that we're even ready to tackle the issue of same-sex marriages - I think our first priority is to drop prejudices, judgements, and rejection of homosexuals. Our gurdwaras and communities absolutely have to be open to them, as well as everyone else.
I don't think there is anything morally wrong with homosexuality, but I also don't think acceptance of Divine Will makes sense as justification for that. All of existence is by Divine Will, including murderers. We should not judge or hate murderers, but we should absolutely stop them. By similar reasoning, we should be accepting of homosexuality, but that does not necessarily mean homosexuality is righteous or acceptable behavior. I personally don't think homosexuality is "wrong" because I don't see any evidence for that notion, either in Gurmat or in my personal experience with homosexuals.
Humans have all manner of emotional and psychological challenges, and if by chance homosexuality is in fact a disorder, I see no reason for it to be singled out from the rest. Many people with serious problems have come before the Guru and been joined in a heterosexual marriage, and then went on to abuse eachother and/or their children. We're humans. That's life. As long as people understand the Sikh marriage and do their best, they aren't turned away. Why should it be any different for homosexuals?
It would be really nice if we had some clear information from the Gurus on who exactly marriage is for. What are the conditions on age, sex, polygamy, etc? As a Sikh, it can be very difficult to understand these kind of issues since the Siri Guru Granth Sahib is so universal - it does not go into detail about the disciplines a Sikh should follow. Guru Gobind Singh gave us a lot of instructions to live as Khalsa, but there are also plenty of important details left out. And plenty of important details not recorded with absolute veracity, so debates continue on and on. I would think a new religion based on love, acceptance, and service that spoke out against oppression and the caste system would have drawn plenty of homosexuals into its fold - so where are our stories of homosexuals from the time of the Gurus?
Beautiful essay Ek Ong Kaar. Your thoughtful and steady-hand approach gives hope not only to the Sikh community but also faith-based groups of every stripe to come into a new relationship and understanding of their own positions regarding homosexuality, marriage, and human rights.
The transcendent teachings of every faith are universal: love, peace, and understanding (tolerance). The way in which those teachings get lost in the cultural norms of the society they sprang from is equally universal.
It is human nature to operate from fear--to resist the other. It is the task of religion to elevate us to our divine nature--to live in love and see ourselves as the other.
"Recognize that the other person is you." The first sutra of the Aquarian Age reminds us that we can longer live in the lie that we are separate; that somehow you and I are intrinsically foreign to one another, when in fact we are so linked that without "you", "I" doesn't exist.
I think ultimately it comes down to accepting homosexuality as a natural expression of sexuality--not a perversion. Religious people fear that if you open the door to normalizing homosexuality, then every other 'perversion' will follow. Listening to Republicans talk about it makes this all too clear as they regularly compare homosexuals to child molesters and other heinous acts of sexual violence. Consensual, committed partnership is very different from perversion. One could argue, in fact, that the 'traditional' marriage is just as 'perverted' in contemporary culture as anything the conservative commentators currently call perversion: infidelity is rampant, children as abandoned trophies, and divorce is more common than not. This is the picture of sacred marriage? I think not.
Your portrait of the deeper questions at the heart of this issue is profound and I thank you for taking the time to put your position in writing. It is groundbreaking--and I am proud to be called your friend.
this is an amazing essay! I have written about Prop 8 in my blog but not with such depth, compassion and analytical power! Thank you for sharing this!
let us take some time to think.....thru the Guru Granth Sahib!!!
I think the problem is when someone has a disorder, it can be clearly defined, oh this is because of this and this. Being gay is confusing because people dont know WHY, is it a chemical, hormonal imbalance? Is it a choice? Is it nurture that caused this? So Hukam and Ego both play a part. Also, is it ok to facilitate lavan for homosexuals, No, on the basis of POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION that the lavan celebrates male and female polarity. Not with the intention that it is wrong, taht is a whole other issue but about staying true to the union. Lavan is a joining of two energies, male and female merging as one, having a gay lavan is like a hindu and a muslim doing lavan) we have to positively discriminate sometimes in order to remain truthful. I dont think being gay is wrong, but in terms of lavan, just the polarity of male and female is unbalanced.
At the outset, let me say that I am a liberal to the core and would go to all lengths to defend the civil and legal rights of the GLBT community. I have friends who are actively practicing same sex unions, and I believe they have the right to pursue their chosen sexuality.
So, in this debate, having said that I am pro-rights for the gay community, I believe that I stand with you on the issue "People who decide to be together as a couple ideally would be treated equally under the law regardless of gender" - and this is only humane. I do not advocate choosing between being gay and being a Sikh, I think both can exist peacefully.
Now, comes the complicated issue of presiding over a gay marriage at the Gurudwara. This is certainly contentious and I can hear GLBT supporters say that this should be allowed.
However, one should take a look at how it impacts the spiritual roots - and this is where I think you should take a stand either for or against it rather than merely saying
"yes I will do it when doing so will not inflame or divide community members against each other".
...for you can never please all the people all of the times.
As you rightly point out being gay is a "special identity" - I would add that it needs special care to nurture the identity. Seeking to find an answer from my interpretation of Sikhi, I believe that Sikh gurus have taught us to accept and adopt a practically monogamous and permanent marriage based family - which is the basis of all social organization. {Homosexuality does not threaten this fabric, but imparts it a new dimension}. The emphasis is therefore on family as a social organization - this family is overlooked in all debates I have heard on the issue - a significant part of the Grihast Ashram in a person's life is to raise a family - something that is not "natural" in homosexual unions. Yes, adopting young ones could mean a family, but this is not what means by following the complete cycle of life, and living it to the fullest extent as described by the Gurus, but at best it is a false comfort. (Yes, I agree that there are women who cannot conceive, but that is a point beyond the scope of this discussion). A union of two souls is also defined as analogous to two distinct energies coming together - a concept not very different from the "Zen yin-yang" theory.
So, to me there are subtle yet very powerful indicators in the Guru Granth Sahib, that teach us a path towards "heterosexual marriages" quite distinct from same sex "marriages" - and having to perform one at the Gurudwara may surely cause a few people to be in opposition.
But again, I am not advocating a choice between being a Sikh and being gay, the bridge between both is built through a civil union (not a spiritual one), and a true Sikh will never differentiate based on sexual orientation.
For want of new meanings and political correctness, we cannot stretch the interpretation of the Guru's word beyond what seems reasonable.
I am born in a Sikh family and I am gay. I hate going to my home town because the culture there does not accept me and I feel half a human there. It has destroyed my relationship with my family and I hate this situation. But I realise so is life. My parents love me, but the community is strongly bound and infuencing. Great trait, but does not help this situation. But i guess they found a way to live their lives and now I have found mine. sometimes i feel sad about it though. Best of luck.
Comment from Guruatma Kaur (TX):
The feeling I have been getting about this whole issue for a long time now is that - to "go there" in the name of what ANYBODY ELSE does in relation to their sexual preference is absolutely OUT OF BOUNDARIES and none of my business . For a long time now, I really NOTICE IT, like a twitch in my eye or a loose tooth in my mouth would feel, when someone introduces a person as, or comments on that someone is GAY. WHAT about that information serves us or the circumstance at-hand to have on our plates in that moment in time and space? In light of this focus, I therefore, can not understand why I am not being introduced as NOT GAY.
Let's "get over it" and keep our focus on SELF-insight and improvement, and holding eachother up into the light.
IT'S ALL GOD!
Satnaam
(This comment was emailed to me, and Kulwant Singh agreed that I could post this to the blog.)
My name is kulwant Singh from Houston. I have associated with 3HO since 1977 and even before that. I also knew Yogi Bhajan before he became Yogi. I worked for him in mid 50's in the custom & excise office in new delhi. Anyway, your article is very impressive. I am going to express my opinion about what Siri Guru Granth Sahib (SGGS) syas. Page 591 last 2/3 lines say " There is only One Alpha Male for all living beings in the Universe or beyond. The rest of all living beings are females. Man or woman, all want to have UNION with God. Now for reproduction, God made males and females. Guru Nanak also denounced Sanyasi (celebacy). Guru Nanak said you can have salvation living a "Giristhi" married life and have family and still achieve salvation by serving God first, then family and then honest means of eartning your livelihood. Going outside the family and having extra marital affair is also denoounced. In Jap-Ji Sahib, 16th and 17th paurrees say there are millions of sinners, thiefs, cheaters robbers and good people. We are not to judge or condemn or even praise anyone. In SGGS, it says "ustat, ninda donow tiag", meaning do not slander or praise anybody. Everybodyn is doing what he/she is assigned to do according to his/her Karma. So, in my opinion, we have no business condemning or praising a behaviour which is out of the norm. Who am I to judge what is norm and what is not. In India, homosexuality/lesbian is not a big issue. Live and let live should be our attitude unless somebody steps on my toes. Let me know what you think. Sat Naam.
The former husband would like to note, for purely historical purposes, that he took no more advantage of the exploratory freedom to which you refer than you did, making it theoretical on both our parts! Yes, you turned out to be completely straight and monogamous, while I turned out to be only mostly straight (and thoroughly nonmonogamous), but I was not the raging closet case that I fear you have allowed your readers to imagine. (Or, in all fairness, that you may have imagined at the time.)
Cavilling aside, I have the deepest admiration for your principled stance on equality and inclusion; and the Sikhs who enjoy your spiritual guidance are fortunate indeed.
PS. Guruatma, I am tremendously pleased to see you posting here.
My name is Matias Lopes, I couldn't use my google id to post for some reason, but I'm actually glad cause I was planing to use my real name anyway...
I'm from Brasil and I would not be daring to call myself a 'sikh', but I do am - or rather was - a Kundalini Yoga student, then, I feel this deep sense of afinity with SikhDharma, whatever my own handicaps as an spiritual-path-follower may be...
Anyway, I know it could sound nasty but I have to confess:
I just fell in love with you
Ek Ong Kaar Kaur! Seriously! I'm sure you will forgive me for this random flirting just because it's NOT RANDOM at all! I saw your video one or two years ago - that one on Japji, in wich you tell the saki about the 'corn grinding itself' and I could never forget it...
Then I saw it again today on YT...
...as if by chance - or because of Instant Karma I wonder...:)
It's really nothing to do with the bana-style white dress (extra auric lenght?) or the khanda-sign jewelry on your front,
in fact I got fascinated with your amazing energy and your extra-cute 'roundy' nose ! Feels like biting it would be heavenly!
I quite understand that you may find this post somewhat 'ofensive' and remove it as soon as you read it: Ok. Just please note that if you perhaps bothered to answer it e-mailing me anyway - then it would b just fantastic! And as, in fact, it is true, I don't regret saying it, not at all, I'm not moralist, just feel that we have to respect each other and specially our higher identity - but as our True soul Mate is actually only One, then how could It possibly offend Itself ???
Perhaps the fact that we are so distant from each other in space made me overcome my shyness, nevertheless I think it's not only the impulse of the moment, I'm positive about it, and most of all I really feel in the deep of my heart that is no ofensive at all to compliment a woman's beauty. Of course, if you are married I then apologize, but for what I could get it's not the case (you divorced the bi guy that, btw, got angry about you saying things that sounded as he had cheated on you :), right?
I regret to say it but I kind of get relief at laughing at it... perhaps because my own wounds because of this broken loving realtionship from my past have not healed yet hehehe).
And if it's only the case that your doing a great job developing a strong Radiant body - well in this case I will just confess that 'maya' has just caught me again hehehe... happens all the time.
Putting this confession aside (great! it ended finally!...)
I can comment on your posts about the gay marriage issue - so interesting the post was, it's a hot issue, and a very timely one as everybody knows.
I would say tolerance is beautiful.
I love everybody, all humans beeings, but it doesn't mean I could engage in sexual relation with anyone regardless of the gender...
I'm NOT saying homosexuality is 'against the laws of God', cause people that say this kind of things don't even have a clue of what they're talking about! Like if this 'divine law' was actually only ink marks on a scrap of paper...
my my...
On the other side, 'Gay is OK' or another slogan of the like is just as stupid as the contrary statement - not based on reality. They have value only as political propaganda of the Glbt comunity. And I do know what I'm talking about: They are the ones that are actually agressive towards others that they think are 'straight' (btw, how could hey know for sure anyway? hehehe).
Of course all the prejudice and undenyable abuse that many of them undertake plays a large role on this 'defensive'(ofensive, in reality) actittude, but the fact is that 99% of the 'gays' have inbalanced personalities. They are just psychologically unhealthy, that is a fact. If WHO took it out of the mental diseases list - it was just a political decision, it doesn't matter to me - not in the spiritual sense - what politicians know anyway? How to manipulate the masses perhaps? only this at best - but we won't be taking it for long, or will we?
(continued...)
continuing...
I'm aware that the flaw on this line of thinking that I'm trying to share with you and the blog readers is that it refers in fact only to 'gays' and not to the homosexuals in the true meaning of the word. OK. I also consider that female homosexuality is just the oposite of male gay behaviour. I'm not praising it, lesbian marriage, not at all - although I do admire lesbians from a purely aesthetic point of view - but I feel that it's just another kind of lust, if you let it loose, it'll just EAT YOU UP and you will waste this precious human encarnation - and here I'm not beeing 'preachy' (and, believe me, in this case I DO have experience on what I'm talking about - but I'll be kind and spare you the details). And for bi-people, I think that is so complicated that is better not to engage in any dicussion on the matter because it would just make thinks more twisted. "Thinking and thinking..." we don't get anything. We have to get to the soul knowledge - but then, when we put it into words again it is 'degraded'. Nevertheless, all prophets, saints and holy teachers had to put It in words anyway - you just can't avoid it cause people need it, and need IT BAD today! I came to this point, arguing perhaps with little skill as my english is only from books movies & Internet, only to come to the point to say this: I would like to share my feelings that all this tolerance - or almost an 'desperate will' to be tolerant and accepting of 'others' and minorities in general is just plain feminist thinking. Seriously: you - and the generation of women writers and scholars that preceeded yours - just took the traditional 'male-dominated' society values and turned it upside down - but in the end it's still a mess! It doesn't help but little, really - just take a look at what's going on on a planetary scale and you will probably agree to that statement. You have to truly sublimate sexism, because just to favor female or 'yin' kind of thinking won't bring any balance to the ONE human comunity that in fact WE All ARE. And that thinking that some other 3HO representative (that woman with glasses, didn't get her name pardon me lady) tries to pass on a video I saw some other day - that 'everybody is a female' except God - I am sorry to say but that is gross! Very very gross indeed! If you take words literally without getting to understand what they really mean you will destroy everyone's teachings, no matter if it's Gurbani, philosophy, Vedas, Jew/Christian bible, whatever - it may even become harmfull. Just remember the context: it was a man - or a male, if that’s the word you prefere - teaching others of the same gender so Guru just had to balance them by pointing what they were LACKING, the actittude they should take from now on!
(continued...)
(now I'm finishing...)
God is the Beloved whatever your spiritual beliefs - in case you just do have them, of course - could possibly be. Talking of him as the Husband meant that the creation, and therefore the individual soul, should aim for the Union w/ the Creator with all of her/his heart's desire, and then OBEY this comand or Hukam in a positive way - and this only makes sense because society of that times had this wifes that were - at least ideally - OBEDIENT! No, I am not chastising how other people's loving relations should be on precise terms, I just try to say that you twisted the teaching completely by taking it only by it's 'face value' and overlooking context of that time/culture/country where the Guru was actually teaching! Those were souls that he was teaching, but souls that had to overcome the traps of 'maya' without falling in the same trap by searchin an 'spiritual path' escape. That's in the core of Gurmat: the way of life of the common householder could and in fact should be a spiritual one. I'm not stupid, I know for sure that homosexuality is not comdened by God's will, otherwise it just would not exist - but please keep in mind that there is karma and ther is dharma and you - each individual in fact - just have to choose! the One won't be disturbed by nothing of course, not even if the whole planet explodes at this very moment! It would be just dust spreading around the space, no big deal to the Spirit - but, at the same time, to us earthlings it does would be an issue then... Seems like I have mixed up two diferent matters... in fact, I sometimes consider that this growth on homosexuality is necessary to help diminish this crazy populational explosion, clearly some deep Inteligence behind it managing things to happen the way they happen - but in the end I realize that I just have nothing to say about it, it would be too naive of mine to admit that I'm that much of an egomaniac! What I know is that 'Akal knows best' for sure, and to me it's just great that way... I love you all people from 3HO and I think that Kundalini Yoga was so inspiring to me (helped in a moment I needed it bad), and Yogi Bhajan such an inspiring master, and of course I know you have much more experience on KY & Sadhana than I do, no question about it... I only try to share this feeling that if all - or 'each one' - of you wonderful embodiements of Shakti could just stop this War of Sexes; sublimating it instead of simply 'taking sides' it wold help us all evolve... because it's also noticeable that, although very very slowly, some Awakening of the global Consciousness is happening! or perhaps we just have to wait the Aquarian age to begin for real in 2012... :) [2013? not that good in Astrology] but if we keep up until that it would be even better. Again, I beg that you don't mind that initial flirting - I just had to say it, that was all! I think it's quite unlikely that we would ever get to know each other personally, but, 'just in case', then I could be the 'dust at your feet' in a more materialistic way he he he... sat nam sat nam sat nam WAHE GURU! P.S.: This is more a question than an afirmative saying, but isn't there a portion of the Dasam Granth Sahib in wich Guru Gobind Singh does talk about homosexual behaviour as a potential trouble to the spiritual path? I also believe that some dispute if this passages are acurate - but again the traditional moralistic point of view is that they (the 'squares') got shocked even by the fact that Guru 'had the guts' to go onto such matters as sexuality etc. discussing it openly. Or perhaps they were just folkloric tales, but if they are in the Granth is for some reason, isn't it?
P.S.: What YB said about it (if he did), do you have it recorded/written?
WAHE GURU WAHE GURU WAHE JIO !
Hi,
I'm a journalism graduate student at New York University. I'm writing a final piece on homosexuality in Sikhism and Hindusim. I was wondering if I would be able to interview you. Please email me of you are available sb3097@nyu,edu
Thank You,
Sabrina
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
W.J.K.K.W.J.K.F.
Bibi ek ong kar kaur ji, though i understand that u are trying to be inclusive in your approach, but i was surprised that you practicing yoga could'nt understand the simple logic. There is just one force in us, and if it moves below the navel point, it produces human life and if it moves upwards it leads to union with god. Being gay is not about loving and sharing because even the so called straights also do that daily in the form of brothers and sisters and other normal relationships, but being gay is a choice of having sex with a person of the same sex. Can you please explain me that when two gay people undergo sexual contact, what are their energies producing??.. the way i see it, its just an emotional(mental) disorder which needs to be cured and not treated. Sexual union between a male and a female can be said to be spritual because it produces a human being which has a jot of paramatama , what does homosexuality result in?? if your answer is "sharing of emotions and feelings", it can be done without being a gay too.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
i wouldnt have even considered replying to you but since you consider youself a sikh and is so in your appreance too, i considered it a duty of myself to clear you that there is no overlapping between gays and sikhs.
i am very much in favor of discussions but please for the sake of sikhism, remove this post of yours, Sri Akal Takht has simply banned this thing and there is no scope of this thing. And even if you still want to propagate gays .. its my humble request that please dont use the excuse of guru granth sahib not given us any reference to this stupid thing and please dont use the word sikhism with gays.
please, its a humble request.
please be logical and dont use sikhism as a platform for gay rights.
And on a personal note though i appreciate your thought of inclusiveness of all humanity, but i believe that it can be done through naam and guru shabad and through validating their emotional disorders.
w.j.k.k.w.j.k.f.
gurjot singh
and please refrain from further discussions on this topic as its a waste of time and rather meditate on the name of lord.
And please delete this post of yours, it makes me feel sick.
thanks
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
What is Stealing? is it an expression of out-of-bounds lobh?
What is Killing? is it an expression of out-of-bounds ahunkaar/krodh (ego/anger)?
What is a one night stand? is it an expression of out-of-bounds kaam (sexual desires)?
Now the question is, what is Homosexuality?.. something related with kaam and mooh (sexual desires and worldly "emotional" attachment).. isn't it?
Why do we have Kaam?
Kaam rass (Sexual desires) is required for Santaan Utpati (Birth of a child)... can homosexuality yield it? No.. Then doing an act and having "rass" (loosely translated- juice) out of it while the energy involved in it isn't serving the mool (basic) purpose of it's creation.. isn't it an exploitation of an already ill mind?...
Waheguru.. Please forgive if anything wrong has been written..
Post a Comment
<< Home