If I Had an Emmy Ballot 2015: Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy

Nick Offerman should already have multiple Emmys for playing Ron Swanson.

Emmy nominations are coming this week and, as I’ve done each of the past two years, I’ll take a look at the past year in performances and give my thoughts on the actors, actresses, and shows I thought were best.

Two notes before we begin.  First, I'm working from the actual Emmy performer ballot, so I won't make any changes like putting Keegan Michael-Key or Jordan Peele in lead actor categories or move Orange Is the New Black into the comedy category, where it was last year.  Second, I'm only going to nominate people and shows that I've seen a good chunk of this past year.  This year, for the comedy categories, that list is rather long, unfortunately, including Veep, Community, New Girl, The Mindy Project, and a few prominent others.

Digging through the list of submissions for supporting actor in a comedy made me realize just how much comedy I’ve missed this year.  I still haven’t seen any Veep, despite its being, by many accounts, the best comedy on television.  And shows that I had previously been current on – Community, New Girl, The Mindy Project, The Big Bang Theory – I fell behind on this past year, largely because of the surge of new dramas.  That said, there were still a ridiculous number of options to choose from, leaving me with a list I’m more than happy with.

Predicting the academy’s choices shouldn’t be too hard.  Tony Hale and Adam Driver have each been nominated the last two years and are bound to be back again, along with at least two Modern Family actors.  Andre Braugher, he of now eight Emmy nominations, will be an easy choice again.  The only real question, then, barring upsets, is whether Fred Armisen can hold his spot, or if a newcomer (or returning Modern Family actor) can grab it.

I’m going to eschew alphabetical order for this category because the nominees for Supporting Actor in a Comedy begin and end with Jaime Camil of Jane the Virgin.  Camil’s Rogelio was, fundamentally, a telenovela star inside of a telenovela.  As such, he had to find the perfect blend between ridiculousness and sincerity as both the narcissistic television star and the loving, unknowing father of Jane.  Camil played it perfectly.  His Rogelio is incredibly self-involved, to the point of scripting his entrance to meeting Jane, and still utterly sincere, in his absolute adoration of Jane and feelings for her mother.  It was a difficult role to portray, but Jane the Virgin couldn’t have cast it better.  Jaime Camil is my first and only, choice for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy.

That’s not to say that the other men this category were bad, especially not Andre Braugher.  Camil and Braugher actually make an interesting pairing, as it is, with Camil playing the absurdly over-the-top character and Braugher the straight man.  But it is precisely the fact that Captain Holt is the straight man that makes his comedic turns so powerful.  Whether it’s “Hot Damn!” or an elaborate ruse to beat Andy Samberg’s Jake at a Halloween prank, Braugher brings a stoic energy to every scene.  When he needs to be the boss, he’s the boss.  When he needs to be funny, he’s hilarious.

No show surprised me more this year than HBO's Togetherness which, frankly, has cheated in its Emmy nominations, submitting both Mark Duplass (who really should be a lead) and Steve Zissis as supporting actors.  Despite the submission shenanigans, both actors are more than deserving of nominations.  Togetherness is an incredibly difficult show that demands of its audience a great deal.  It requires people to understand and accept Duplass’s Brett, even in spite of his insecurities and marital difficulties.  And Zissis is both the schlubby best friend and the aspiring actor, meaning that we should get all of the clichés involved.  But his relationship with Amanda Peet’s Tina grounds him in reality and makes him relatable.  Togetherness is a difficult show because its characters aren’t perfect and because we are expected to see ourselves in their imperfections.  It was a show that certainly got to me, in no small part because of Duplass and Zissis.

Silicon Valley made The Leap in season two, not least because of the constant eccentricities and absurdities of TJ Miller.  I though his character was far too over-the-top in season one but, as it turned out, he was right in line with the sensibilities of the show.  And, as we discovered this past year, his outsized ego and personality were really just a mask for the fact that, deep down, Erlich Bachman is a failure.  He tries desperately to feign importance and talent when, the truth is, the one success he’s ever had was a fluke.  He needs Pied Piper as much, if not more, than they need him.  That conflict between bold, boastful Erlich and impotent, incompetent Erlich gave Miller a lot to work with, and he nailed it.

It’s a damn shame that seven years are going to come and go and Nick Offerman will never receive even so much as a nomination for portraying one of comedy’s iconic characters: Ron Swanson.  I’ve written time and time again, as have many other critics, about the greatness that Offerman has brought to Parks and Recreation but, for whatever reason, the television academy just hasn’t seen it.  The final season of Parks was no different, with Offerman bringing the laughs (and occasionally tears) week after week.  Parks and Rec may be gone, but the legend of Ron Swanson will live on.

Others considered: Tituss Burgess (Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt), Terry Crews (Brooklyn Nine-Nine), Adam Driver (Girls), Keegan-Michael Key (Key & Peele), Taran Killam (Saturday Night Live), Kumail Nanjiani (Silicon Valley), Randall Park (Fresh Off the Boat), Jordan Peele (Key & Peele), Jay Pharoah (Saturday Night Live), Chris Pratt (Parks and Recreation), Martin Starr (Silicon Valley)

Those are my Emmy choices.  It was a very strong year for comedy that really just made me wish I had seen more of these shows.  But given what I saw, I’m still excited by this list.  Agree?  Disagree?  Let me know in the comments or on Twitter @TyTalksTV.  Next time we’ll look at the drama supporting actresses.

Tyler Williams is a professional librarian and an amateur television critic.  You can reach him at TyTalksTV AT gmail DOT com or on Twitter @TyTalksTV.

If I Had an Emmy Ballot 2015: Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama

Can Uzo Aduba and Samira Wiley break into an already crowded field?

The Emmy nominations are less than one week away and this year’s competition is looking especially heated.  The overall increase in the amount of television and rules changes limiting actors’ ability to submit as guest performers has ballooned the performers ballot by a whopping forty percent.  As I’ve done each of the last two years, I’ll take a look at the past year in performances and give my thoughts on the actors, actresses, and shows I thought were best.

Two notes before we begin.  First, I'm working from the actual Emmy performer ballot, so I won't make any changes like putting Keegan Michael-Key or Jordan Peele in lead actor categories or move Orange Is the New Black into the comedy category, where it was last year.  Second, I'm only going to nominate people and shows that I've seen a good chunk of this past year.  For the purposes of this category, that means no Scandal or The Good Wife actors, among a few others.

Previously, we looked at the drama Supporting Actor nominees and today it’s the drama Supporting Actresses.  This could be a year of huge change for this category, not necessarily because of the returning nominees – all of whom, except last year’s winner Anna Gunn, are still eligible – but because of two big changes to the Emmys.  This past year, the academy changed how shows are submitted into drama and comedy categories.  Previously, it was up to the show to decide which category it wanted to submit in.  This year, the academy declared that all hour-long shows would automatically be considered dramas while all half-hour-long series would be considered comedies.  Shows would then have to petition to have their statuses changed, which would be decided by a committee.

The second change is that the Academy put strict episode limits in place to determine who could submit as a guest actor and who could submit as a supporting actor.  In recent years, actors and actresses have been winning (and nominated for) guest Emmys despite appearing in every (or nearly every) episode of a season.  This year, an actor who appears in more than fifty percent of a show’s episodes must submit as a supporting actor, not a guest.

The practical effect of these rules is that Orange Is the New Black, which last year submitted as a comedy and took up three Guest Actress nominee spots (including winner Uzo Aduba), was forcefully switched to the drama category and is bringing four 2014 Emmy nominees along: Aduba, Laverne Cox, Natasha Lyonne, and Kate Mulgrew.  That means a whopping nine 2014 nominees are eligible in this category, with only six spots to fill. 

All of this doesn’t even include newcomers like The Leftovers and Halt and Catch Fire which, while they aren’t what would necessarily be considered “traditional” Emmy shows, had several fantastic supporting actress performances.

I doubt we’ll see a ton of change in this category in 2015; it’s just not the Emmy way.  Lena Headey is almost a shoo-in to return after her long walk in the Game of Thrones season finale.  And Christine Baranski, Christina Hendricks, Joanna Froggatt, and Maggie Smith haven’t done anything in the last year to indicate they’re in danger of losing their perennial spots (the quartet has received seven of eight possible nominations in the two years since Downton Abbey came over to the drama category).  The biggest question is whether OITNB can snag a second spot or if their actors will get shut out in the transition to comedy.

I didn’t see any The Good Wife episodes this year and my fondness for Downton Abbey waned sometime during season four, so I have the luxury of picking two Orange Is the New Black stars and I’m going with Uzo Aduba, last year’s Guest Actress Emmy winner, and Samira Wiley.  Honestly, I probably could have filled this entire category with OITNB actresses and walked away happy.  Lorraine Toussaint is the obvious choice, as the villain of the season, but I didn’t particularly care for her character.  I was absolutely devastated by Morello’s (Yael Stone) episode, and easily could have put her in here.  Kate Mulgrew and Laverne Cox were nominated last year, so they would have been easy inclusions.  And Danielle Brooks had probably the most overtly comic character in a show I still consider to be largely a comedy, so I could have used that as a protest vote to the category change.

But, in the end, it was these two performances I kept coming back to.  Aduba’s Crazy Eyes, I mean “Suzanne,” finally found direction inside the prison, but it unfortunately came at the direction of Vee’s insane attempts at control.  That balance between focus and insanity is where Aduba excels and it’s where Suzanne sat for pretty much the entirety of season two.  Samira Wiley, meanwhile, had a much less significant role, but managed to bring the drama and comedy anyway.  I struggled mightily to choose between her and Yael Stone, but I felt that most of my love for Stone came from her focus episode, while Wiley excelled even beyond her fantastic solo piece.

Game of Thrones is constantly filled with actresses who could seemingly receive an Emmy nomination and, indeed, I could easily fill this spot with Lena Headey or Maisie Williams but, this year at least, it’s Emilia Clarke.  Game of Thrones is almost always better when characters are coming together rather than moving apart and this was a season that saw Clarke moving closer to other characters, even as her power in the east seemed to wane.   The return of Jorah, and with him Tyrion Lannister, energized the Essos storyline, giving viewers a reason to finally care again.  And the final two episodes, with Drogon and Dany flying away from Meereen were utterly beautiful.  It’s difficult to say that Clarke had a great deal to do in season five of GoT, but she made what she had work.

Carrie Coon had both the single best scene and the single best submission episode of any other Supporting Actress nominee this year.  Her work in The Leftovers was unparalleled for about 45 minutes.  Her only obstacle is that that 45 minutes represented much of her output for the entire season.  Coon’s Nora Durst was largely a background entity during the first half of the freshman season of The Leftovers, but when she had the focus, she was magnetic.  You couldn’t look away from her.  This feels like one of those situations where, if Coon can corral a nomination, she should be a shoo-in, but she feels very unlikely to earn that nomination, given the specificity and the oddity of her role.

I very nearly nominated a quartet of actors from AMC’s Halt and Catch Fire but, ultimately, it was only Mackenzie Davis who could find her way on to my final ballot.  That’s not to say anything negative about Toby Huss, Scoot McNairy, or Kerry Bishé.  They all did fine work.  But the standout of the up-and-down drama’s freshman season was, by far, Davis’s Cameron, as the coding prodigy brought in to seemingly do all of the men’s hard work.  It’s easy to look at the strangest looking actor and declare them the biggest character, but Davis was placed in the most vulnerable position of the show and asked to control so many scenes and constantly stand up for herself.  She handled it all brilliantly.

My final Supporting Actress choice is Katheryn Winnick of Vikings.  I have to say, while I had no apprehension nominating her as a leading actress two years ago, I was very reluctant to bring her in to the supporting actress category last year, largely because it felt like her character took a huge step backward in the show: moving from the confident, assertive wife of a warrior to the passive, if plotting, single woman looking for an Earl.

In season three, Winnick’s Lagertha is a woman on her own, looking for glory and victory in her own battles, leading men to both victory and defeat.  At this point in the history of Vikings it’s clear that, as much as he could wish otherwise, Ragnar Lothbrok’s fate is as entwined with his wife Lagertha as it is with anybody else.

Also Considered: Kerry Bishé (Halt and Catch Fire), Amy Brenneman (The Leftovers), Danielle Brooks (Orange Is the New Black), Joelle Carter (Justified), Laverne Cox (Orange Is the New Black), Caitlin Fitzgerald (Masters of Sex), Lena Headey (Game of Thrones), Annet Mahendru (The Americans), Ivana Milicevic (Banshee), Kate Mulgrew (Orange Is the New Black), Billie Piper (Penny Dreadful), Franka Potente (The Bridge), Yael Stone (Orange Is the New Black), Mary Steenburgen (Justified), Maisie Williams (Game of Thrones)

Those are my Emmy choices.  It will be an interesting year for the category, with so many previously nominated actresses converging at the same time.  Agree?  Disagree?  Let me know in the comments or on Twitter @TyTalksTV.  Next time we’ll look at the drama supporting actresses.

Tyler Williams is a professional librarian and an amateur television critic.  You can reach him at TyTalksTV AT gmail DOT com or on Twitter @TyTalksTV.

If I Had an Emmy Ballot 2015: Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama

Can Kit Harington turn his breakout season into an Emmy nomination?

It’s Emmy time again, with the nominations announcement just ten days away.  As I’ve done each of the last two years, I’ll take a look at the past year in performances and give my thoughts on the actors, actresses, and shows I thought were best.

Two notes before we begin.  First, I'm working from the actual Emmy performer ballot, so I won't make any changes like putting Keegan Michael-Key or Jordan Peele in lead actor categories or move Orange Is the New Black into the comedy category, where it was last year.  Second, I'm only going to nominate people and shows that I've seen a good chunk of this past year.  For the purposes of this category, that means no Sons of Anarchy or Boardwalk Empire actors, among a few others.

We’ll start with the award for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama.  Perennially, this is the deepest and most difficult category and part of me wanted to just throw up my hands, slot in the three Justified actors and three Game of Thrones actors, and call it a day.  But this year feels like a chance for some new blood.  Three of my choices for last year are no longer eligible (thanks to the end of Breaking Bad and Charles Dance leaving Game of Thrones) while a fourth, Jeffrey Wright, is on Boardwalk Empire, whose final season I have not yet gotten to.  In terms of the actual nominations, last year’s winner Aaron Paul is no longer eligible, nor is Josh Charles.  And it feels long overdue that Jim Carter, Mandy Patinkin, and Jon Voight should stop being nominated.

It feels like there are a lot of new openings and a lot of new actors to fill them.  Then again, knowing the Academy, we’ll probably get the four returning nominees, another nomination for Jonathan Banks, playing the same role for which he was nominated in 2013, just in a new show, and a swan song nomination for either Walton Goggins or John Slattery.  Still, this is a fun category to discuss simply because of the sheer volume of talent.

It’s not unheard for an actor to be nominated for – or even win – multiple Emmys for playing the same character on different shows.  James Spader has a pair of Emmys for his work as Alan Shore on The Practice and Boston Legal.  Kelsey Grammer was nominated for playing Frasier Crane on Cheers before winning four Emmys on Frasier.  But it’s certainly not common, so it’ll be interesting to see whether Jonathan Banks can accomplish the feat after his first season on the Breaking Bad prequel, Better Call Saul.  Banks’s work on Breaking Bad was largely understated until the first half of the fifth season and here, too, he spends the first several episodes of Saul as the lowly parking lot attendant whose only role is to hassle and frustrate leading man Jimmy McGill.  But “Five-O” unleashes the Mike Ehrmantraut we knew from Breaking Bad and allows Banks to break out.  His tour de force performance in that episode may not be enough to earn him a nomination alone, but it certainly stands out as the single best submission episode of the season.

Game of Thrones can be a tricky call to make when it comes to choosing actors, given how the prominence of any given character can wax and wane from season to season.  In the last two years, I’ve nominated three different actors in this category but only Peter Dinklage more than once.  This year, he returns joined, to my pleasant surprise, by Kit Harington.  Game of Thrones spent four seasons as a sprawling epic, telling the tales of kings and nobles born and killed.  But the series’ endgame finally began to fall into place in season five, and it did so around Dinklage’s Tyrion Lannister and Harington’s Jon Snow. 

Snow was largely a non-entity for the show’s first four years, mostly just hanging out in the north and getting into trouble.  But the enormity of the White Walkers and the difficulties in making people understand their threat thrust Jon into a leading role in season five and Harington handled it with aplomb.  This is pretty clearly a case of an actor only being able to live up or down to the material he’s given and Harington was given some great material this year.  He handled it perfectly.

On the other side of the narrow sea was Tyrion Lannister, finally bringing the two halves of Game of Thrones together.  He didn’t have quite as many showy scenes this year as perhaps he has had in the alst two seasons, but Dinklage is still one of the best pairings of actor and part in recent television history.

I was very hesitant to accept Netflix’s Daredevil, largely because I wasn’t sure of how much they would try to fit it into the overall Marvel Universe.  To my pleasant surprise, it became clear fairly early on that the show had no interest in dealing with aliens or robots or much else outside of Hell’s Kitchen.  It is a dirty, gritty show that doesn’t get much dirtier or grittier than Vincent D’Onofrio’s Kingpin.  The (usually) restrained rage that D’Onofrio brought to nearly every scene was a delight to watch.  One of my favorite stock villain types is the person who knows that what he’s doing is wrong, but who does it anyway because he believes that the ends justify the means – the Utilitarian, if you will.  Not only was Daredevil’s Kingpin tremendously written in this vein, but D’Onofrio balanced the conflict, arrogance, and anger perfectly.

I easily could have placed any Justified actor on this list, but Sam Elliott gets the nod for his portrayal of villain Avery Markham in the show’s final season.  Garret Dillahunt, Jere Burns, and Walton Goggins may have gotten the flashier parts, but it was Elliott who was allowed to twirl his mustache (for once only metaphorically speaking) and play the long game.  His natural charm and vague sense of constant threat made for a great behind-the-scenes manipulator.

I went back and forth on this last spot a lot, originally writing several sentences about Halt and Catch Fire’s Toby Huss, but unable to really explain what I had liked about him before realizing that it his was performance this season, in next year’s Emmy eligibility period, that was really drawing me in.  So I came back to John Slattery, whose performance as Roger Sterling, like all Mad Men performances, is shamefully likely to end its run without an Emmy.  Slattery was so good for so long on this show that it’s easy to forget just how effortlessly he slid into that role.  But watching him work with Elisabeth Moss in “Lost Horizon,” as both Roger and Peggy mourn and celebrate what they created at SCP was just delightful.  Slattery hasn’t been nominated since 2011, but if he were to make his way back on the ballot, it would be much deserved.

Also considered: David Anders (iZombie), David Bradley (The Strain), Jere Burns (Justified), Tom Cavanagh (The Flash), Nikolaj Coster-Waldau (Game of Thrones), Garret Dillahunt (Justified), Christopher Eccleston (The Leftovers), Noah Emmerich – The Americans, Walton Goggins (Justified), David Harbour (Manhattan), Toby Huss (Halt and Catch Fire), Vincent Kartheiser (Mad Men), Frank Langella (The Americans), Scoot McNairy (Halt and Catch Fire), Tobias Menzies (Outlander), Norman Reedus (The Walking Dead), Ashley Zukerman (Manhattan)

Those are my Emmy choices.  As you can see by the extensive “also considered list,” this was another big year for drama supporting actors, even without guys like Jeffrey Wright or Michael Kenneth Williams, whose show I haven’t yet gotten to.  Agree?  Disagree?  Let me know in the comments or on Twitter @TyTalksTV.  Next time we’ll look at the drama supporting actresses. 

Tyler Williams is a professional librarian and an amateur television critic.  You can reach him at TyTalksTV AT gmail DOT com or on Twitter @TyTalksTV. 

On Christianity and Gay Marriage

I have a few television posts coming down the pike, but I've seen the following article a lot in my social media feeds and it's something I feel rather strongly about.  Please excuse the diversion.


Recently, I've seen this article popping up on Facebook and Twitter, asking 40 questions of Christians who support gay marriage.  As a Christian who wholeheartedly supports gay marriage, I say "Challenge accepted."


1. How long have you believed that gay marriage is something to be celebrated?

 About seven or eight years.  Basically since I first met actual gay couples.


2. What Bible verses led you to change your mind?

It wasn’t a Bible verse that changed my mind, but if you want one, let’s go with Romans 13:10: “Love does no harm to its neighbor.  Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.”


3. How would you make a positive case from Scripture that sexual activity between two persons of the same sex is a blessing to be celebrated?

1 John implores us to “love one another, for love comes from God.  Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God…No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us…God is love.  Whoever lives in love lives in God and God in them.”

God is love.  It is impossible for me to believe that a God who would instill love in us would deprive us of the ability to express that love to another person. 


4. What verses would you use to show that a marriage between two persons of the same sex can adequately depict Christ and the church?

See above.  Marriage, as the ultimate demonstration of love for another person, is an invitation for God to live in them and through them.


5. Do you think Jesus would have been okay with homosexual behavior between consenting adults in a committed relationship?

It’s tough to say because this would have been a relatively uncommon practice in Ancient Rome.  I can’t definitively say one way or the other.


6. If so, why did he reassert the Genesis definition of marriage as being one man and one woman?

Jesus was responding to the Pharisees who were attempting to trap him and get him to say something
in contradiction to Jewish law (“The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?’”).  In response, he did what he always did with the Pharisees: give them a legally correct answer that was bound to frustrate them anyway, since Moses had previously allowed divorce (see also: “render unto Caesar” and “let he who among you is without sin cast the first stone”).


7. When Jesus spoke against porneia what sins do you think he was forbidding?

I can say with absolute, 100% certainty that Jesus never in his life spoke against “porneia” because Jesus didn’t speak Greek.  But leaving that small piece aside for the moment, let’s consider the word “porneia.”  In its most modern connotation, porneia is generally translated as “sexual immorality.”  This has had the unfortunate consequence of allowing everybody to write their definition of “sexual immorality” onto the term.  For most, sexual immorality includes adultery.  For some, it includes homosexuality and premarital sex.  For others, it includes masturbation.  For other still, it includes dancing, wearing dresses that end above the ankles, wearing sleeveless tops, not covering your hair and women touching men to whom they are not married. 

But porneia has a much more specific definition than simply “sexual immorality” and must be considered alongside its complement “moicheia.”  Most often, while porneia is translated as “sexual immorality,” moicheia is translated as “adultery,” but really they are two sides of the same coin.*  In Ancient Greece, moicheia referred to the violation (usually through adultery though this would also apply to rape) of an honorable woman: a wife, daughter, or widow.  Strictly speaking, moicheia was not a violation of the woman, but of the man who was responsible for protecting the woman’s honor.  In Greek society, at least for men, moicheia was forbidden, unlike its counterpart porneia, or extramarital sex with a dishonorable woman or man (usually a prostitute or a slave).  Porneia was not only legally and socially permissible, but often encouraged.  And even then, the term “porneia” was typically reserved for the one selling themselves or being used, not for the “john.”  In fact, the root form of the word (pernao) means “to sell off.”

It is in this context, then, that we must understand the Jewish use of “porneia,” The Jews, in their efforts to set themselves apart from the Greeks, identified porneia as a sin, not just for the woman, but for men as well.  But despite this expansion, it still referred almost exclusively to prostitution (in the Old Testament) and sex outside of marriage.  

So, in answer to the original question, Jesus never spoke against “porneia,” but what he did speak out against that the author of Matthew translated as “porneia” could very well have been extramarital sex of any kind or, more specifically, having sex with prostitutes and slaves.

* Matthew 19:9, the verse in which Jesus is quoted as saying “porneia” is usually translated as “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality [porneia], and marries another woman commits adultery [moicheia].”  A very reasonable interpretation of this verse is that Jesus is telling the Pharisees that a man who divorces his wife is guilty of a far greater sin (moicheia) than the dishonorable woman who sells herself on the street (porneia).


8. If some homosexual behavior is acceptable, how do you understand the sinful “exchange” Paul highlights in Romans 1?

It’s important to remember that, in both Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, sexuality did not abide by the traditional hetero/homosexual dichotomy that we view it in today.  Rather, sex was about power, with a dominating partner and a submissive partner – or, to put it crudely, a giver and a receiver.  It was not considered wrong, legally, socially, or morally for a man to have sex with another man (or boy), as long as he was in the dominant role.

This was the culture in which Ancient Romans lived and it was the culture which Paul was addressing.  It is entirely possible, then, to understand Paul’s description of the symptoms of God’s wrath (and these are the symptoms, not the cause) as the subversion in gender roles brought about when men take the submissive role in sex or women take the dominant role (gender roles are a common theme in Paul’s letters).  In other words, Paul is telling the Romans, “When God’s wrath comes, the unbelieving men will be turned submissive and made receivers of sex.”  This is not meant as a strict condemnation of homosexuality in general, but as an explicit threat to the Romans of the humiliations (in their minds) they would endure if they don’t repent.


9. Do you believe that passages like 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Revelation 21:8 teach that sexual immorality can keep you out of heaven?

If everything the Bible says will send us to Hell will actually send us to Hell, then we’re all doomed.
In all seriousness, so long as we accept that those actions are wrong and ask forgiveness then, no, they will not keep us out of heaven. 


10. What sexual sins do you think they were referring to?

See above, re: porneia.


11. As you think about the long history of the church and the near universal disapproval of same-sex sexual activity, what do you think you understand about the Bible that Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, and Luther failed to grasp?

I don’t think that I know more.  But those men didn’t agree on everything either.  It is possible to not have a 100% accurate view of the Bible and Jesus’s teaching and still be right about enough to be saved.  Hell, Thomas Aquinas practically invented purgatory (or at least its doctrine), which Calvin and Luther both rejected and about which Augustine was, at best, agnostic.


12. What arguments would you use to explain to Christians in Africa, Asia, and South America that their understanding of homosexuality is biblically incorrect and your new understanding of homosexuality is not culturally conditioned?

I would say that the current anti-gay Christianity is based on some misinterpretations of the original text that itself is based in cultural conditions many centuries ago.  I would also encourage them to embrace love in its many forms.


13. Do you think Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were motivated by personal animus and bigotry when they, for almost all of their lives, defined marriage as a covenant relationship between one man and one woman?

No.


14. Do you think children do best with a mother and a father?

I think that children do best in stable, two-parent homes.


15. If not, what research would you point to in support of that conclusion?

The research seems to indicate that children in homes with two same-sex parents fare just as well as children in homes with two opposite-sex parents.


16. If yes, does the church or the state have any role to play in promoting or privileging the arrangement that puts children with a mom and a dad?

See above.


17. Does the end and purpose of marriage point to something more than an adult’s emotional and sexual fulfillment?

Yes.


18. How would you define marriage?

Marriage is how two people demonstrate to themselves, their friends, their family, and God that they love each other and are committed to spreading that love to everybody they know.


We’re now leaving moral territory and entering political territory.  While my previous responses were based on my religious and moral beliefs, the following are based on my political beliefs.


19. Do you think close family members should be allowed to get married?

20. Should marriage be limited to only two people?

21. On what basis, if any, would you prevent consenting adults of any relation and of any number from getting married?

These are all basically the same question, so I’ll tackle them together.  In a perfect world, where everybody is perfectly good and nobody is in any way bad, I would have no problem with family members marrying or polygamy as the government should not be in the business of discriminating without a compelling interest.  Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world, and the power dynamics in such relationships very often result in abuse, typically of women.  The state has a compelling interest in ensuring that such abuse does not occur, so it understandably prohibits such relationships.


22. Should there be an age requirement in this country for obtaining a marriage license?

Nobody should be allowed to marry prior to the age of consent.


23. Does equality entail that anyone wanting to be married should be able to have any meaningful relationship defined as marriage?

The state should not be in the business of discrimination.  If it is going to issue marriage licenses, it should do so equitably, barring a compelling interest not to.


24. If not, why not?

See above, re: 19, 20, and 21


25. Should your brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with homosexual practice be allowed to exercise their religious beliefs without fear of punishment, retribution, or coercion?

In private, yes.  But if you are using your religious beliefs as a pretense to discriminate, then no. 
Religious beliefs have been used for all manner of deplorable things.  The trial judge in the Lovings’ case (of Loving v Virginia – the Supreme Court case that overturned anti-interracial marriage laws) once wrote, “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

A court clerk should no more be allowed to deny a marriage certificate for a same-sex couple than an interracial couple.  It’s your job.  If you can’t do it within the confines of the law, then find another.
I would, however, exempt from this artists, including cake decorators and florists.  Nobody should be forced to ply an art for a cause they do not support.


26. Will you speak up for your fellow Christians when their jobs, their accreditation, their reputation, and their freedoms are threatened because of this issue?

I do not support the use of religion as an excuse for discrimination.  After all, Jesus said “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”  There is not an exception carved out there for gay people.  Love your neighbor as yourself.  Full stop.


27. Will you speak out against shaming and bullying of all kinds, whether against gays and lesbians or against Evangelicals and Catholics?

I would defy you to find me an Evangelical or Catholic person who has truly been bullied because of their beliefs about gay marriage.  If that has happened, I would stand against it.  As for shaming, I believe holding a discriminatory viewpoint is shameful.  On some issues there are not two sides. 


28. Since the evangelical church has often failed to take unbiblical divorces and other sexual sins seriously, what steps will you take to ensure that gay marriages are healthy and accord with Scriptural principles?

By supporting and honoring them as much as every other marriage.


29. Should gay couples in open relationships be subject to church discipline?

If a church views extra-marital affairs as a sin, then they should treat all such affairs equally.


30. Is it a sin for LGBT persons to engage in sexual activity outside of marriage?

No more so than it is for heterosexual people.  You know, you’re not making a very good argument against gay marriage here.  After all, it was Paul who recommended that early Christian men get married as a means of avoiding the temptations of porneia.  It seems like the same could work for LGBT people.


31. What will open and affirming churches do to speak prophetically against divorce, fornication, pornography, and adultery wherever they are found?

The same things other churches do (which, let’s face it, is usually nothing.)


32. If “love wins,” how would you define love?

I’d need another 1,000 words for that and it’s already 11:00pm.  In short, love is love.  That feeling you have for your significant other?  Gay people feel it for their significant others, too.  It's no different.


33. What verses would you use to establish that definition?

34. How should obedience to God’s commands shape our understanding of love?

35. Do you believe it is possible to love someone and disagree with important decisions they make?

You seem to be implying in this question that homosexuality is a “decision.”  If that’s what you’re saying, there’s not much point in continuing here.  All evidence is pointing to the conclusion that homosexuality is an innate condition.  If you’re asking me if it’s possible to love someone and to believe that a fundamental aspect of their very nature will condemn them to Hell, then I would say “no.”


36. If supporting gay marriage is a change for you, has anything else changed in your understanding of faith?

I no longer believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.  It was written by men, who each had their own agendas and audiences and must be interpreted in such contexts.


37. As an evangelical, how has your support for gay marriage helped you become more passionate about traditional evangelical distinctives like a focus on being born again, the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ on the cross, the total trustworthiness of the Bible, and the urgent need to evangelize the lost?

It’s actually strengthened my faith by convincing me that God’s plan for all of us, gay or straight, involves love.  God is love.  He manifests himself on earth through love.  And it is through his love for us – all of us – that we are saved.


38. What open and affirming churches would you point to where people are being converted to orthodox Christianity, sinners are being warned of judgment and called to repentance, and missionaries are being sent out to plant churches among unreached peoples?

Well, few American churches (and no evangelical churches) truly teach “orthodox Christianity,” but I’m a huge fan of College Hill United Methodist in Wichita, Kansas.


39. Do you hope to be more committed to the church, more committed to Christ, and more committed to the Scriptures in the years ahead?

Yes.


40. When Paul at the end of Romans 1 rebukes “those who practice such things” and those who “give approval to those who practice them,” what sins do you think he has in mind?

See above, re: #8.  But just to end on a snarky note, Paul is rebuking “they [who] have no understanding, no fidelity, no mercy.”