Timbre of a TimeFree Mind
Kevin and Darren live in Portland Oregon and are a gay, committed couple. We believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all...regardless of sexual orientation, gender, race, nationality, financial status, and being. Erase man-made borders and "they" become "we". New Site: HERE.Friday, January 21
Jonathan Loved David
For the sake of simplicity, I'll let the Bible itself unfold most of the story.
After David's heroic victory over the Philistine giant, Goliath, in 1 Samual, Chapter 17, David meets Jonathan for the first time.
1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. 2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. 3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. 4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle. 1 Samuel 18: 1-4
Their souls are knit together, they love each other so much that they made a covenant with each other, and Jonathan, son of the King, strips before David, who is much lower in rank and status.
In the next passages, David's popularity and military achievements are advanced, and King Saul starts getting jealous of all the attention being paid to David. In order to trap him, Saul makes David his son-in-law by giving him his daughter, Michal, to wed.
Some people may stop right here and say that if David married Michal, it's proof that he didn't have a homosexual relationship with Jonathan. There are several flaws to this argument. First, their marriage was probably only political. Saul offers his daughter's hand in marriage only as part of a greater plot to get at David. And while it was said that Michal loved David, the Bible never says that he loved her back. Also, we know from other ancient cultures such as the Greeks and even the Philistines, that heterosexual marriages weren't necessarily exclusive. It's very possible that David could have been bisexual.
In 1 Samuel 19, Saul tries to kill David, and David eventually flees in 1 Samuel 20.
1 And David fled from Naioth in Ramah, and came and said before Jonathan, What have I done? what is mine iniquity? and what is my sin before thy father, that he seeketh my life? 2 And he said unto him, God forbid; thou shalt not die: behold, my father will do nothing either great or small, but that he will shew it me: and why should my father hide this thing from me? it is not so. 3 And David sware moreover, and said, Thy father certainly knoweth that I have found grace in thine eyes; and he saith, Let not Jonathan know this, lest he be grieved: but truly as the LORD liveth, and as thy soul liveth, there is but a step between me and death. 4 Then said Jonathan unto David, Whatsoever thy soul desireth, I will even do it for thee. 1 Samuel 20: 3-4
David and Jonathan continue talking about what to do about Jonathan's father. Then they part ways so Jonathan can go somewhere safe. Again they make a covenant with each other, and swear their love for each other. Jonathan loved David "as he loved his own soul".
16 So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, Let the LORD even require it at the hand of David's enemies. 17 And Jonathan caused David to swear again, because he loved him: for he loved him as he loved his own soul. 1 Samuel 20: 16-17
In the next passages, they plan to meet again so that Jonathan can let David know whether he should come back safe from Saul, or whether he should go away. And Jonathan talks to his father. Saul tells Jonathan that he is confused in his love for David. He also says that as long as David is around, Jonathan won't establish his lineage or kingdom. This certainly has all the elements of a coming out story.
30 Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness? 31 For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom. Wherefore now send and fetch him unto me, for he shall surely die. 1 Samuel 20: 30-31
Jonathan warns David that his father is still angry, and that he's not safe. They reaffirm their covenant to each other, kiss each other, cry over the situation, and I'm not even going to try to interpret what it might mean when the passage says "David exceeded".
41 And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded. 42 And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the LORD, saying, The LORD be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever. And he arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city. 1 Samuel 20: 41-42
In 2 Samuel 1, David hears about the death of Saul and Jonathan in battle. He mourns their deaths, and remembers his times together with Jonathan stating that Jonathan's love for him was stronger than Jonathan's love for women.
25 How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! O Jonathan, thou wast slain in thine high places. 26 I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women. 2 Samuel 1:26
Well that's their story as told in the Holy Bible. There are other Bible heroes that are rumoured to have been gay or lesbian. Among them are Ruth and Naomi, Daniel and an eunuch, and the Apostle Paul (though if he was, he had his own issues with sexuality).
[Matrix Werks]
Thursday, January 20
First Genome Scan of Male Sexual Orientation Published
One hundred forty-six families that had two or more gay brothers participated in the study. The largest finding was a statistically suggestive linkage to a region on chromosome 7 called 7q36, and the second largest link was found on chromosome 8, in a region called 8p12. There was also an interesting finding on chromosome 10, in the region called 10q26, where the linkage to sexual orientation only occurred if that region was inherited from the mother. This is likely a result of the recently discovered phenomenon that geneticists call “genomic imprinting.” Given the complex nature of sexual orientation it is not surprising that multiple genetic regions were implicated.
According to the lead author of the study, Dr. Brian Mustanski, “Our study helps to establish that genes play an important role in determining whether a man is gay or heterosexual. It expands upon previous research with twins, which has consistently found evidence for genetic influences on sexual orientation. The next steps will be to see if these findings hold up in a new sample and then identify the particular genes within these newly discovered chromosomal regions.” Dr. Mustanski emphasized that finding the specific genes would have implications beyond uncovering the cause of homosexuality. Their identification would also greatly advance our understanding of human variation, evolution, and brain development.
Previous genetic research had focused on the X-chromosome, which men inherit only from their mothers, because of the tendency for homosexuality to pass through the mother’s side of the family. When the scientists used their new genetic markers, they confirmed linkage to the X chromosome in the previously studied families of this sort, but not in new families with different patterns of inheritance. This pattern of findings suggests that different genes may influence sexual orientation in different families – a process referred to as locus heterogeneity.
The study was conducted at the National Institutes of Health in the laboratory of the senior author, Dr. Dean Hamer. Researchers in the laboratory of Dr. Nicholas Schork at the University of California at San Diego provided statistical consultation on the project. Dr. Brian Mustanski is currently at the University of Illinois at Chicago. The study was published in the online version of Human Genetics on January 12, 2005 and will be in print in an upcoming issue of the journal.
For more information please contact Dr. Brian Mustanski, at 312-996-9505 or bmustanski@psych.uic.edu. The article can be downloaded from the publisher here
Monday, January 17
Was Abe Lincoln Gay?
If the loving heart of the Great Emancipator found its natural amorous passions overwhelmingly directed toward those of his own sex, it would certainly be a stunning rebuke to the Republican Party’s scapegoating of same-sex love for electoral purposes. And a forthcoming book by the late Dr. C.A. Tripp — The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln, to be published in the new year by Free Press — makes a powerful case that Lincoln was a lover of men.
Tripp, who worked closely in the 1940s and 1950s with the groundbreaking sexologist Alfred Kinsey, was a clinical psychologist, university professor and author of the 1975 best-seller The Homosexual Matrix, which helped transcend outdated Freudian clichés and establish that a same-sex affectional and sexual orientation is a normal and natural occurrence.
In his book on Lincoln, Tripp draws on his years with Kinsey, who, he wrote, "confronted the problem of classifying mixed sex patterns by devising his 0-to-6 scale, which allows the ranking of any homosexual component in a person’s life from none to entirely homosexual. By this measure Lincoln qualifies as a classical 5 — predominantly homosexual, but incidentally heterosexual."
Tripp also found, based on multiple historical accounts, that Lincoln attained puberty unusually early, by the age of 9 or 10 — early sexualization being a prime Kinsey indicator for same-sex proclivities. Even Lincoln’s stepmother admitted in a post-assassination interview that young Abe "never took much interest in the girls." And Tripp buttresses his findings that Lincoln was a same-sex lover with important new historical contributions.
Others, preceding Tripp, have proclaimed in print that Lincoln was gay. The first, some four decades ago, was the pioneer Los Angeles gay activist Jim Kepner, editor of ONE, the early gay magazine (the ONE Institute National Gay and Lesbian Archives at the University of Southern California [Link] is the largest collection of gay historical material in the world). Kepner focused on Lincoln’s long-acknowledged intimate friendship with Joshua Speed — with whom Lincoln slept in the same bed for four years when both men were in their 20s — as did later writers, like the historian of gay America Jonathan Ned Katz and University of Massachusetts professor Charles Shively. Gore Vidal has said in interviews that, in researching his historical novel on Lincoln, he began to suspect that the 16th president was a same-sexer. But all this has been little noticed or circulated outside the gay community.
In 1990, the American Historical Association presented a panel on "Gay American Presidents? — Washington, Buchanan, Lincoln, Garfield." Tripp was in the audience, and was seized with the desire to explore Lincoln’s sexuality and emotional complexity with the same brand of scrupulous methodology he’d learned from Kinsey. Tripp devoted the next decade to this research, and created an electronic database and index cross-referencing for more than 600 books of Lincolnalia, a historical tool now available at the Lincoln Institute in Springfield, Illinois.
One of the few traditional Lincolnists to describe (however obliquely) the lifelong Lincoln-Speed relationship as homosexual was the Illinois poet Carl Sandburg, in his masterful, six-volume Lincoln biography. In the tome titled The Prairie Years (1926), Sandburg wrote that both Lincoln and Speed had "a streak of lavender, and spots soft as May violets." "I do not feel my own sorrows more keenly than I do yours," Lincoln wrote Speed in one letter. And again, "You know my desire to befriend you is everlasting." In a detailed retelling of the Lincoln-Speed love story — including the "lust at first sight" encounter between the two young men, when Lincoln readily accepted Speed’s eager invitation to share his narrow bed — Tripp notes that Speed was the only human being to whom the president ever signed his letters with the unusually tender (for Lincoln) "yours forever" — a salutation Lincoln never even used to his wife. Speed himself acknowledged that "No two men were ever so intimate." And Tripp credibly describes Lincoln’s near nervous breakdown following Speed’s decision to end their four-year affair by returning to his native Kentucky.
Full story here
Thursday, January 13
Focus on Gay and Lesbian Rights in Kyrgyzstan
[IRIN News Service]
Kyrgyzstan is known as an island of gay tolerance in an otherwise oppressive region. Some gay people come here from Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, where homosexuality is punishable by law, in search of a more favourable and accepting environment. The number of gay and lesbian groups in the country is growing as a consequence.
On Saturday a new support group called "Labrys" was launched in the capital, Bishkek, to promote the rights of lesbians. The Labrys, or double-bladed axe, comes from the goddess Demeter (Artemis). It has become a symbol of lesbian and feminist strength and self-sufficiency. "It will organise lesbians, provide them with psychological and legal help, and work on establishing a more tolerant attitude towards lesbians in the country," Anna Dovgopol, leader of the group, funded by money from the Netherlands, told IRIN.
The new organisation will publish a monthly magazine, organise seminars on health issues, and open a telephone hot-line and resource centre to offer advice and support. Counselling and cultural events will also be offered. Lesbianism remains very much a taboo in this conservative Central Asian nation. "If my family ever finds out that I belong to the group, I will be in deep trouble," one of the women at the launch, who refused to be photographed, told IRIN.
Although the attitude to gays and lesbians in Kyrgyzstan is less hostile than in neighbouring states, people of non-traditional sexual orientation, especially gay men, are one of the most oppressed and discriminated groups in the country, according to recent research conducted by Denis van der Veur for the Dutch HIVOS Fund. Most gays and lesbians in the country live in the capital, Bishkek, or in the northern part of the country, which is more liberal than other regions. In Bishkek, according to the Oasis NGO, the only organisation fighting to protect the rights of gay men, there are around 35,000 people of a different sexual orientation. The NGO officially works with just 6,500 of them who are open about their sexual orientation. Others remain undercover. Those who decide to go public risk physical and verbal abuse, possible loss of work and unwanted attention from the police and authorities. Veur, who conducted research with more than 50 gay men in the capital, found that they "describe their environment in Kyrgyzstan as negative, hostile and even violent. They refer to the prevalence of discrimination in public places such as bars and restaurants, from where they are often asked to leave." Around 65 percent of men surveyed said they had been physically or psychologically abused because of their sexual orientation. "Homosexuals are still poorly informed about their rights," Vladimir Tyupin, the leader of Oasis, said. "Many of them do not know that homosexuality is legal in Kyrgyzstan, and they often are ashamed to ask for legal help. Although senior policemen seem to be understanding, it is the lower ranks, the street patrol officers, who chase and abuse gay men in Kyrgyzstan." Theoretically, no one can refuse a gay person a job due to his or her sexual orientation. In reality, homosexuals are sacked under some pretext when their sexuality is revealed, but the official reason for their sacking does not mention their sexual orientation. A recent Oasis opinion poll indicated that most employers in the region would not hire a gay or lesbian if they were aware of the person's sexual orientation. The situation of homosexuals in prisons is especially daunting as gay men are often openly victimised by inmates and the authorities. Almost half of such people in custody are physically abused, according to research.
Wednesday, January 12
See it driving nails
Into the souls on the tree of pain
From the firefly,
A red orange glow
See the face of fear
Running scared in the valley below
Bullet the blue sky
Bullet the blue sky
Bullet the blue
Bullet the blue
...ah...ah...
In the locust wind comes a rattle and hum
Jacob wrestled the angel
And the angel was overcome
You plant a demon seed
You raise a flower of fire
See them burning crosses
See the flames higher and higher
Bullet the blue sky
Bullet the blue sky
Bullet the blue
...ah...
Bullet the blue
...ah...ah...ah...ah...ah...ah...
This guy comes up to me
His face red like a rose on a thorn bush
Like all the colors of a royal flush
And he's peeling off those dollar bills
Slappin' 'em down
One hundred, two hundred
And I can see those fighter planes
And I can see those fighter planes
Across the mud huts where the children sleep
Through the alleys of a quiet city street
You take the staircase to the first floor
You turn the key and slowly unlock the door
As a man breathes into a saxophone
And through the walls you hear the city groan
Outside it's America
Outside it's America
Across the field you see the sky ripped open
See the rain through a gaping wound
Pounding on the women and children
Who run...
Into the arms...of America
[Bono]
Friday, January 7
She is addicted to he
She is the root connection and
She is connecting with me
Here I go and I don't know why
I spin so ceaselessly
Could it be he's taking over me
I'm dancing barefoot
Headed for a spin
Some strange music drags me in
It makes me come up like some heroine
She is sublimation
She is the essence of thee
She is concentrating on
He who is chosen by she
Here I go and I don't know why
I spin so ceaselessly
Could it be he's taking over me
I'm dancing barefoot
Headed for a spin
Some strange music drags me in
It makes me come up like some heroine
She is recreation
She intoxicated by thee
She has the slow sensation that
He is levitating with she
Here I go and I don't know why
I spin so ceaselessly
'Til I lose my sense of gravity
I'm dancing barefoot
Heading for a spin
Some strange music drives me on
Makes me come up like some heroine
Oh God I feel for you
-Patti Smith and Ivan Kral
What's in a Word? Plenty, if it's "Marriage"
What's in a word? Plenty, if the word is "marriage".
Marriage is central to our culture. Marriage legally confers over 600 benefits, but that is only its material aspect. Marriage is an institution, the public expression of lifelong commitment based on love. It is the culmination of a period of seeking a mate, and, for many, the realization of a major goal, often with a build-up of dreams, dates, gossip, anxiety, engagement, shower, wedding plans, rituals, invitations, bridal gown, bridesmaids, families coming together, vows, and a honeymoon. Marriage is the beginning of family life, commonly with the expectation of children and grandchildren, family gatherings, in-laws, little league games, graduations, and all the rest.
Marriage is also understood in terms of dozens of deep and abiding metaphors: a journey through life together, a partnership, a union, a bond, a single object of complementary parts, a haven, a means for growth, a sacrament, a home. Marriage confers a social status - a married couple with new social roles. And for a great many people, marriage legitimizes sex. In short, marriage is a big deal.
The conservatives are using two powerful ideas: definition and sanctity. We must take them back. We have to fight definition with definition and sanctity with sanctity. For both sides, "marriage," as an ideal, is defined as, "the realization of love through a lifelong public commitment." Love is sacred. The sanctity in marriage is the sanctity of love and commitment.
Like most important concepts, marriage also comes with a variety of prototypical cases: The ideal marriage is happy, lasting, prosperous, with children, a nice home, and friendships with other married couples. The typical marriage has its ups and downs, its joys and difficulties, typical problems with children and in-laws. The nightmare marriage ends in divorce, due perhaps to incompatibility, abuse, or betrayal. It is a rich concept.
None of the richness we have just discussed requires marriage to be heterosexual - not its definition, its sanctity, its rituals, its family life, its hopes and dreams. The locus of the idea that marriage is heterosexual is in a widespread cultural stereotype.
In evoking this stereotype, language is important. The radical right uses "gay marriage." Polls show most Americans overwhelmingly against anti-gay discrimination, but equally against "gay marriage." One reason, I believe, is that "marriage" evokes the idea of sex and most Americans do not favor gay sex. Another is that the stereotype of marriage is heterosexual. "Gay" for the right connotes a wild, deviant, sexually irresponsible lifestyle. That's why the right prefers "gay marriage" to "same-sex marriage."
But "gay marriage" is a double-edged sword. President Bush chose not to use the words "gay marriage" in his State of the Union Address. I suspect that the omission occurred for a good reason. His position is that "marriage" is defined as between a man and a woman, and so the term "gay marriage" should be an oxymoron, as meaningless as "gay apple" or "gay telephone." The more "gay marriage" is used, the more normal the idea of same-sex marriage becomes, and the clearer it becomes that "marriage" is not defined to exclude the very possibility. This is exactly why some gay activists want to use "same-sex marriage" or even "gay marriage."
Because marriage is central to family life, it has a political dimension. As I discuss in my book Moral Politics, conservative and progressive politics are organized around two very different models of married life: a strict father family and a nurturing parent family.
The strict father is moral authority and master of the household, dominating both the mother and children and imposing needed discipline. Contemporary conservative politics turns these family values into political values: hierarchical authority, individual discipline, military might. Marriage in the strict father family must be heterosexual marriage: the father is manly, strong, decisive, dominating - a role model for sons and a model for daughters of a man to look up to.
The nurturing parent model has two equal parents, whose job is to nurture their children and teach their children to nurture others. Nurturance has two dimensions: empathy and responsibility, for oneself and others. Responsibility requires strength and competence. The strong nurturing parent is protective and caring, builds trust and connection, promotes family happiness and fulfillment, fairness, freedom, openness, cooperation, community development. These are the values of a strong progressive politics. Though the stereotype again is heterosexual, there is nothing in the nurturing family model to rule out same-sex marriage.
In a society divided down the middle by these two family models and their politics, we can see why the issue of same-sex marriage is so volatile. What is at stake is more than the material benefits of marriage and the use of the word. At stake is one's identity and most central values. This is not just about same-sex couples. It is about which values will dominate in our society.
When conservatives speak of the "defense of marriage," liberals are baffled. After all, no individual's marriage is being threatened. It's just that more marriages are being allowed. But conservatives see the strict father family, and with it, their political values as under attack. They are right. This is a serious matter for their politics and moral values as a whole. Even civil unions are threatening, since they create families that cannot be traditional strict father families.
Progressives are of two minds. Pragmatic liberals see the issue as one of benefits - inheritance, health care, adoption, etc. If that's all that is involved, civil unions should be sufficient - and they certainly are an advance. Civil unions would provide equal material protection under the law. Why not leave civil unions to the state and marriage to the churches, as in Vermont?
Idealistic progressives see beyond the material benefits, important as they are. Most gay activists want more than civil unions. They want full-blown marriage, with all its cultural meanings - a public commitment based on love, all the metaphors, all the rituals, joys, heartaches, family experiences - and a sense of normality, on a par with all other people. The issue is one of personal freedom: the state should not dictate who should marry whom. It is also a matter of fairness and human dignity. Equality under the law includes social and cultural, as well as material benefits. The slogan here is "freedom to marry."
The Democratic presidential nominees are trying to sidestep the issue. Kerry and Dean claim marriage is a matter for the church, while the proper role for the state is civil unions and a guarantee of material benefits. This argument makes little sense to me. The ability of ministers, priests, and rabbis to perform marriage ceremonies is granted by governments, not by religions. And civil marriage is normal and widespread. Besides, it will only satisfy the pragmatic liberals. Idealistic conservatives will see civil unions as tantamount to marriage, and idealistic progressives will see them as falling far short of equal protection. It may work in Vermont and perhaps in Massachusetts, but it remains to be seen whether such an attempt to get around the issue will play in most of the country.
And what of the constitutional amendment to define marriage legally as between a man and a woman? Conservatives will be for it, and many others with a heterosexual stereotype of marriage may support it. But it's unlikely to get enough progressive support to pass. The real question is, will the very proposal of such an amendment help George Bush keep the White House?
It's hard to tell right now.
But the progressives who are not running for office can do a lot. Progressives need to reclaim the moral high ground - of the grand American tradition of freedom, fairness, human dignity, and full equality under the law. If they are pragmatic liberals, they can talk this way about the civil unions and material benefits. If they are idealistic progressives, they can use the same language to talk about the social and cultural, as well as the material benefits of marriage. Either way, our job as ordinary citizens is to reframe the debate, in everything we say and write, in terms of our moral principles.
Sanctity is a higher value than economic fairness. Talking about benefits is beside the point when the sanctity of marriage is in dispute. Talk sanctity first. With love and commitment, you have the very definition of the marital ideal - of what marriage is fundamentally about.
We all have to put our ideas out there so that candidates can readily refer to them. For example, when there is a discussion in your office, church, or other group, there is a simple response to someone who says, "I don't think gays should be able to marry, do you?" The response is, "I believe in equal rights, period. I don't think the state should be in the business of telling people who they can or can't marry. Marriage is about love and commitment, and denying lovers the right to marry is a violation of human dignity." The media does not have to accept the right wing's frames. What can a reporter ask besides "Do you support gay marriage?" Try this: "In San Francisco, there has been a lot of discussion of the freedom to marry, as a matter of equal rights under the law. How do you feel about this?" Or try this: "Do you believe that love is sacred? Since marriage is the realization of love through commitment, do you think marriage is sacred?"
Reframing is everybody's job. Rockridge Institute
Saturday, January 1
Spain approves gay marriage bill
The bill gives same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, including the right to adopt children.
The Roman Catholic Church and conservative opposition have fiercely opposed the move, which opinion polls suggest has the public's support.
If the bill is approved by parliament, it will make Spain the third EU country to authorise gay marriages.
The government, which estimates around 10% of Spaniards are gay, says it expects homosexuals to be able to marry as early as next year.
The issue of adoption further fuelled the controversy, stiffening opposition from the church.
Institution
After the vote, the Spanish Bishops' Conference issued a statement saying the cabinet's decision was "wrong and unjust".
"A married couple, producing and educating their children, contributes in an irreplaceable way to the growth and stability of society," the bishops said, adding that a homosexual couple "could never have such characteristics".
They said gay people's rights as citizens should not be discriminated against, but insisted social institutions had to be protected.
"Marriage is essentially a heterosexual institution," they said.
But Cabinet spokeswoman Maria Teresa Fernandez de la Vega said thousands of children lived with homosexual parents and numerous studies had shown that they were no different to children brought up in heterosexual homes.
"There is no proof that homosexual parents educate their children any worse. In adoption, the well-being of the children comes first, independent of the sexual orientation of the parents," she said.
The Christian Association of Gays and Lesbians welcomed the cabinet's decision.
Respect
Gwenael Le Moing, of the association, said that the law would help the normalisation of homosexuality in society - "although there was still a lot of work to do".
"It also leaves the church more and more isolated in its discriminatory position."
The adoption part of the bill will allow gay couples to adopt only Spanish children, to avoid any legal wrangles with other countries. Under the bill, married gay couples will also be entitled to draw a pension after a partner's death and to divorce.
Church leaders had earlier compared the plans to releasing a virus into society and called on politicians to reject them.
Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero took office in April, intending to remove what he called the Church's undeniable advantages and create a secular state with streamlined divorce and relaxations in abortion law.
Earlier this week he said: "I deeply respect the opinions of the Catholic Church even if they are very critical of the government. I ask them to show the same respect."
The Church's influence on Spaniards has declined precipitously since the death in 1975 of the dictator General Francisco Franco. His regime was closely linked to the Church.
Opinion polls suggest that nearly half of Spaniards now almost never go to mass.
Archives
July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005
