On a roll...

In our spiritual disciplines class today, we did a lectio divina centered on Psalm 139:1-12.  It was an interesting experience , which resulted in reading the scripture five separate times and trying to frame it in a different perspective each time.  It was a new experience, and I'm not sure how I feel about it.

Alas, I had a very hard time concentrating, and had to slip out of class soon after we finished because my phone lit up in the middle of the practice.  Plenty of people were trying to inform me how the hearing went regarding the custody of my nieces and nephews, and knowing a response was there made it difficult to focus on what the lectio divina experience was.

As it turns out, the answer is yes, maybe, sometimes, a bit.  While I wasn't there, the synopsis I received essentially came down to this: joint custody still.  However, there's a victory in that.  My sister, on her days off, can take the kids to do whatever she wants in whatever capacity she wants, as long as it is a safe space for them.  So mother gets to see the children as well.  What remains unclear is the status of mother seeing the kids on her own.

He argues she is trying to turn the kids gay.  Or something to that effect.  I wonder how he can question the validity of her upbringing practices, since she raised two children with at least a moderate amount of success, one of which he was married to for a decade.

I awoke this morning to his posting of an article written for Fox News about gay parenting, which he had posted on his Facebook.  I'm not sure exactly what it means, or whether or not it means anything.  It's hard for me to take anything from Fox News seriously, but this quote jumped out at me:

Lesbian mothers reported that their children behave in ways that do not conform to "sex-typed cultural norms." And the sons of lesbians are reportedly less likely to behave in traditionally masculine ways than those raised by heterosexual couples.

And I wonder: isn't that a good thing?  Of course, my perspective is one from a child of a lesbian, so I may be  just a little biased, but what is the traditional masculine way?  Is it the brute jock that demands the head at the table and dominance of others?  Is it the warmongering leader that sends souls to die on a whim?  Is it the greed-infused focus that worships the almighty dollar?  Is it the slave holder, the misogynist, the adulterer?  These are all "traditional" masculine ways.

Is it the bully?

I've been thinking all week about the tragedies we've seen this year resulting from bullying, but I haven't felt a way that the outreach seen really connects with me, or connects with the me that was.  Did I always know things would get better?  Maybe, maybe not, but that didn't stop terrible thoughts from running through my head sometimes.  I know I never saw anyone in which I could truly relate my experience to, despite the vast support of my family, and to some extent, my friends.  It took an experience with meeting a new friend late in high school to show me what life could be like when I believed in who I felt I was, and be comfortable, and that translated well to college (and beyond).  I want to help others, but that was my own way, and everyone's path is their own.

Do I feel successful today, having been raised by a lesbian?  Do I feel like I don't behave in less traditional masculine ways?  Do I support gays in parenting?  Yes, yes, and yes.  Do I think that my mother should have a hand in raising my nieces and nephews?  Well, my sister and I seem to have turned out OK (in a generic sense of the word), so why not?

Ah , but the important question: he's the father, she's the mother.  If his wishes clash with her wishes, who wins?  Well, the joy of joint custody is that on his days, he gets to do what he wants with the kids.  On her days, she gets to do what she wants with the kids.  And if her days involved being cared for by my mother, then it seems to me that is my sister's decision to make on her days, and he has his chance on his days.  Clearly, I'm not lawyer or judge, but in the logical sense of the situation, that's just what seems right to me.

And how does this relate to Psalm 139?  Well, it doesn't.

If I say, “Surely the darkness shall cover me, and the light around me become night,” even the darkness is not dark to you; the night is as bright as the day, for darkness is as light to you. (11-12)

Right?