Cupcake Heaven

Recently, I decided to make cupcakes.  I wanted to do something I hadn't done previously, in the world of cupcakes and decided to borrow from my incredibly successful Valentine's truffles--White Chocolate Hearts filled with Lemon Curd and Raspberry Jam.

Forgetting the White Chocolate part of the equation, I made a standard yellow cake batter--gluten-free, of course.

I made 2 dozen standard cupcakes and 2 dozen mini cupcakes.  The mini cupcakes were a result of having leftover batter and not having any additional standard sized pans.  The minis could not be filled, and I ran out of frosting, so they weren't frosted either.

I filled the cupcakes with a Raspberry Sauce and frosted them with a Lemon Cream Cheese Frosting.

The results were nothing short of amazing.

Yellow Cupcakes (from Roben Ryberg's You Won't Believe It's Gluten-Free, Wedding Layers, Yellow -- Potato-based)

1 cup oil
2 cups sugar
4 large eggs
1 cup milk
2 cups potato starch
1Tbls + 1 tsp baking powder
1/4 tps baking soda
1 tsp salt
2 tsp vanilla
1 1/2 tsp xanthan gum
1/2 tsp apple cider vinegar

Preheat oven to 350-degrees.

Mix the oil and sugar until combined.  Beat in the eggs until thick and light yellow.

Add the mix and thoroughly combine.  Stir in vanilla and acv.

Sift all dry ingredients together and incorporate into the wet ingredients.

Pour by scant 1/3 cupfuls into lined muffin tins and bake for 25-27 minutes, until a toothpick inserted into the center comes out clean.

Cool thoroughly.

Raspberry Filling


12 oz red raspberry
1/2 cup sugar
2 Tbls cornstarch

Combine sugar and cornstarch.

Add to raspberries in medium saucepan.  Stir until raspberries are thoroughly coated.

Cook over medium heat, stirring constantly until sugar melts and the berries release their juices.  Continue cooking until the juice is clear--this indicates the corn starch is completely cooked.

Cool completely.

Lemon Cream Cheese Frosting

8 oz cream cheese, softened
7 Tbls unsalted butter, softened
5 cups powdered sugar, sifted
1 lemon
1 tsp lemon extract

Juice and zest the lemon.  (This is an excellent job for a 13 year old who wants to help but who has trouble seeing kitchen baking tasks through from beginning to end result.  Though the seem to magically appear again once the task has been completed).

Beat cream cheese and butter until thoroughly combined.

Beat in powdered sugar, in 2-3 installments.

Add the juice, zest, and extract.

Using the smallest sausage attachment on a spritzer cookie press, fill the cupcakes with raspberry filling.

Frost with the Lemon Cream Cheese Frosting.

Eat too many.

Enjoy every last crumb.

Communication Breakdown

I have this friend who prefaces any comment she makes at the beginning of a discussion of morals or ethics with, "I know you don't believe the same things I do, but...."

This is grossly offensive to me.

I'm not offended by the fact that she's acknowledging a difference of beliefs.  I'm offended because 1) she's never really asked me what I believe and 2) I actually do believe many of the same things she does.  And I've told her so.  It would seem she doesn't actually believe me.  Every time we have a conversation about ethics, I end up feeling as though she does not actually listen to me, and that because she neither listens to me nor acknowledges that we share some of the same beliefs, she judges me.

It's funny, because she's expressed the sense of being judged by me because I occasionally make offhand remarks about sex.  The reality is, I am not judging her.  My occasional offhand remark is not made in an effort to offend or make her uncomfortable.  It's the kind of thought that runs through my head on a regular basis and I share it because I feel so at ease with her, that I have not felt the need to censor myself.

There are those out there who believe I have no filter and will make such remarks in front of anyone.

Not the case.  The man at work I refer to as Satan?  Nope.  The woman at work I refer to as Demon Bitch?  Nope.

And it's not just people I dislike or even despise.

My former pastor?  I would never make a sexual joke in front of her.

My current mentor?  Oh, my glory!  I had a sit-down with him recently and was seeking his guidance on an issue.  I wanted to make sure he had enough background to understand the dynamics of the situation, but I was mortified to be sharing some of that reality with this man, who I would prefer think of me as an asexual cyborg.  In attempting to make the background clear without crossing a boundary, I used words like "romantic" and "physical contact," and I was so stressed out about sharing this history with him that I sat there in tears as I blushed all the way up to my eyeballs.

Either of my current pastors?  I'd rather die than discuss "romantic interludes" and "physical contact" with these two men, even in the context of seeking pastoral care and direction in processing.

And there is no way on God's green earth or anywhere else in the known or unknown universe that I would work blue in front of any of the aforementioned men.

The problem, as I see it, in my conversations with this woman is that we're talking about two very different topics.

Take for example the issue of premarital sexual contact.

This is a woman who believes it is a sin.  Because I have had "romantic" entanglements that did include "physical contact," she insists that I must believe that premarital sex is okay.  This is despite the fact that I have explicitly expressed to her my belief that any sex experiences (for me anyway) are best engaged in only within the confines of covenantal marriage.  That I have previously acted in a manner inconsistent with my stated belief is proof to her that we do not believe the same things.

Oh, really?  You have never, at any point, in your entire life, acted in any manner or fashion that is inconsistent with your stated beliefs?  You have never grown impatient, said an unkind word or committed an unkind deed?  You've never been guilty of envy?  You've never committed an act of self-promotion?  You always seek to honor all others?  You've never once put your desires above the needs or desires of others?  You've never lost your temper or held a grudge?

Oh, that we could all be so perfect.  Oh, that none of the rest of us should ever need a bit of grace.

What upsets me most about this is that her insistence that we do not believe the same thing invalidates the grief and sorrow I feel at my own brokenness and the mistakes I have made.  It hurts me every time she insists that we do not believe the same things because it's a claim that is rooted in the belief that her ability to act in accordance with her stated beliefs concerning premarital sex makes her better than me because I failed where she did not.

The judgment and condemnation I have felt every time this topic has come up has left me feeling unsafe and unable to trust her when it comes to discussing my struggles, because anytime I start a conversation about how hard it can be to not have sex, I'm going to be met with a response that starts with, "I know we don't believe the same thing..." despite the fact that I'm confessing that I'm struggling with a desire that is in opposition with my stated beliefs.  To most people, this would signal that we do believe the same thing.  Her insistence that we do not believe the same thing inevitably translates to, "I'm better than you because I don't struggle with this."  To say, "I believe this and you do not" is to establish a situation in which one person's views are valid, the other's are not.  It is a situation in which one person holds the power and one does not.  It is a situation in which one person is IN and one person is OTHER.

Another point of contention between us is the issue of homosexuality.

I'm far more liberal than she is when it comes to issues of marriage equality.  Why?  Because I believe that equal protection under the law is constitutional, and to deny non-heteronormative couples basic legal rights is unconstitutional.

There are those who would argue that "marriage" is a religious institution, and as such, has been defined by God as "One man, one woman," and that the government has no business changing the definition of marriage.  To which I say, "The first time the word translated as 'marriage' in the Christian Old Testament is used, it is in reference to a man who has married two women."

Furthermore, as the question of whether or not God invented or even defined marriage is a sacred issue (i.e. of or relating to religion) and the question of whether or not non-heteronormative couples should be permitted the same legal status as heteronormative couples as it relates to relationship status and the privileges, social, legal, and otherwise that come with that legal status (married) is a secular issue (i.e. not overtly or specifically religious); and as the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the first amendment of the United States Constitution explicitly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," it is clearly unconstitutional for congress to enact laws concerning secular issues based on sacred definitions of shared terms.

To those who believe that permitting non-heteronormative couples to wed somehow violates their first amendment rights in regards to the Free Exercise Clause, I ask, "How so?  No one is preventing you from holding your religious views concerning homosexuality.  No one is forcing you to engage is homosexual behavior.  No one is forcing you to perform or validate in a sacred context any homosexual relationship."  In other words, granting non-heteronormative couples the legal right to marry has no effect whatsoever on the religious rite of marriage.

This is my political belief.

When it comes to the issue of religious beliefs, I'll start with comments this woman has made to me.  Paraphrased, she has indicated that it is her belief that, "Homosexuality is a sin.  It is other and less than what God intended when He created human beings, and is at odds with the Christian faith.

Well.  There you have it.

If you subscribe to a literal interpretation of the bible (which I do not, and I would assume this woman does not either as she wears clothing made of multiple fabrics, and her husband shaves his side locks), then, well, an argument might be made based in the fact that the story of creation as found in Genesis 1 indicates that God created Adam and Eve, and from them populated the entire earth.

Interestingly enough it was only after God had brought every creature upon the earth before Adam, and no suitable mate was found, that God created the woman.  A rabbi I once knew posited that this was an indication that Adam engaged in sexual congress with every animal and was not capable of reproducing with any of them, thus the necessity to create a female human.  And yet none of my "Christian" friends who love to pull out the "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" remark are willing to support bestiality as a suitable lifestyle.

Furthermore, this might indicate that God was not entirely sure what She had in mind when it came to the sexual pleasure and reproductive aspects of human beings.  Which leads me to question where others get the idea that they know beyond a shadow of a doubt what God's intention was at the beginning of time based on a text written some 6,000 years ago by a group of people trying to define their faith, their origins, and distinguish themselves from their neighbors as a discreet ethnic group.

Secondly, if all humans on earth are descendants of Adam and Eve, then incest must not have been taboo.  So, why is it these same people are horrified by the notion today?

None of this, however, is ever the point of a conversation on sexual ethics, as far as I'm concerned.

It's fascinating to think about, but it's not what I think about when discussing marriage equality.

When my friend defends the continued denial of basic civil rights to non-heteronormative couples based on her religious convictions, her starting point seems to be her understanding of what God "intended" when the book of Genesis was written 6,000 years ago.  Her belief is that homosexuality is a result of brokenness in human nature (i.e. caused by original sin) and, as such, is in itself sin.

When I defend my support of marriage equality and granting the same civil right to non-heteronormative couples as those enjoyed by heteronormative couples, my starting point is today, the present, the here and now.

See, I don't care if the bible defines homosexual sex acts as sin.  I don't really care if homosexuality is a matter of choice or of biology.  (Though for the record, I believe homosexuality is a matter of biology).  What I care about is the fact that people are homosexual and they are being denied basic human rights based on their (biologically determined) sexual preferences and nothing more.

To say that it's inappropriate to allow same-sex couples to marry, or have children, or adopt children because God did not intend for humans to engage in homosexual congress is akin to saying that this friend of mine should not be married because she has traits that are not what God intended for human kind.

Specifically, my friend has a stutter.

One could easily make the claim that God did not intend for people to stutter.  Otherwise, would so many of us speak without impediment?  Her stutter must be a result of living in a broken world.  Her stutter must stem from original sin and is in itself sin.

Furthermore, since God intended humans to be able to express love and affection to one another in a clear manner, and since one of the consonant sounds she struggles with most is the "l" sounds, it's unacceptable for this woman to be married.  She cannot say, "I love you," in a clear fashion.  Furthermore, it would be absolutely horrifying for her to have children.  After all, children need both a father and a mother who can express love in an unbroken manner.  You know, as God intended it.

So, when I have conversations about sexual ethics and morals, I do not start from the notion of what I believe God intended as defined in a book written by a group of people 6,000 years ago who failed horribly time and again at living out the standards their book dictated to be God's standards, where most "Christians" I know claim to start from.

I do not start "In the beginning," because I figure, I wasn't around then, and neither were you, and the world is not a Utopian paradise, and to claim that we know what God intended when the world and all that is in it was created is the height of hubris.

I start here.  I start now.  I start in a place where we both are.  Post-fall (if you take that theology seriously, and most days, I don't).  I start in the reality of brokenness.  Because, you know, we're all in the same boat there.

My starting point is one of acknowledging that homosexuals exist.  Period.  End of story.

My starting point is one of acknowledging that people have had sex before marriage.  Period.  End of story.

So, do I care whether or not the bible defines homosexuality as sin?  No.

Do I care whether or not the bible defines premarital sex as sin?  No.

Do I care whether or not God intended humans to only have sex with one other person of the opposite sex and only after they've participated in a sacred rite called a "wedding"?  No.

Do I care whether God ever intended any humans to be homosexual?  No.

And do you know why?  Because at this point in history, what God did or did not intend is a moot point when dealing with the realities that homosexuals do exist and people do have sex--even unmarried ones.

What I care about is that the a group of people, who claim to base their ethics and beliefs on a book that repeats two commandments more often than any others (Love God, Love Others), consistently seeks to and succeeds in invalidating the personal experience and understanding of the self of those whose sexual attraction is to individuals of the same sex.  I care that this same group of people consistently shames and invalidates individuals who have had premarital sex.  And there is nothing in this world as unloving as the choice to invalidate another human being.  Every act of physical, psychological, emotional and sexual violence ever committed has been based in the belief that it is acceptable to invalidate others because the one committing the act of violence sees the one upon whom such acts are committed as being less than human.

Every act of injustice has been an act of invalidating another human being; and those who have committed acts of injustice have done so based on the belief that those against whom they have committed acts of injustice are less than human.

Every denial of any human right that has ever been perpetrated has been an act of invalidating other and has been perpetrated by an individual who has based their denial on the belief that the person they are denying basic rights to is somehow less than human.

And I want to live as a person who brings peace.  I want to live as a person who brings justice.  I want to live as a person who fights for the basic rights of others.

Above all, I want to live a life grounded in two basic tenets:  Love for God and love for others.

So, it does not matter to me whether God intended an individual to be homosexual or not.  It does not matter to me whether an individual's sexual preference is based in biology or sociology.

It does not matter to me whether you've had premarital sex or not.

What matters to me is that there are people who are homosexual, right here, right now.

What matters to me is that there are people out there who have had premarital sex, and who are hurting as a result of it.

This is my lived reality.

It does not matter to me, from an ethical perspective, how you got here.  It matters to me that you're here now.  My ethics are based on the fact that you exist, and I choose to love you here and now.

It seems to me that my friend and I do not differ in regards to ethics so much as we've never had a conversation about ethics in which we were discussing the same topic.

I think a lot of needless arguments everywhere happen because people are not arguing two sides of a topic, but because they're arguing two wholly different topics.

If I were to base my discussions of moral beliefs and ethics in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, I would agree with this woman 100%.  But I don't.  I do not base my discourse in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 because I find it wholly and utterly unhelpful and inappropriate for dealing with the reality of loving people today.

What some people claim was God's intent is not what is.  As such, I believe that in issues of sexuality, as in any issue, we must start with the raw material before us.  We must acknowledge what is.  And in all situations, we are called--as a people of faith--to love God and love people.  I, for one, do not believe that holding to the belief that people's loving, consensual, affirming relationships are invalid accomplishes this mission.  I do not believe that shaming or judging others for choices they made for which they already feel a sense of brokenness and mourning is loving.

I wish I knew how to have constructive conversations about this.  I wish I knew how to accomplish more.

I wish I knew better how to love God and love people.  Even when they hurt me.

The After

"The After" is firmly rooted in "The Before," that time when the landscape of my life had been abysmally and indelibly altered by the realities of traumatic loss.

In the before, I was less than nothing and yet somehow more toxic than an atomic fallout.  I told my best friend that I had nothing, that I could not function, that I needed someone to help me put the pieces back together.

And she promised that she would be there for me.  And then she abandoned me, left me to rot and moulder entirely alone.  Through circumstances beyond my control, I had no local support beyond her and no real support anywhere else.

I tried the church.  And I was shamed for being angry with God, after all, "It's Satan's fault, not God's"' and my grief was dismissed and invalidated because, after all, I "hadn't known Tim all that long and he's in a better place now."  Fuck the church.

So, I turned, instead, to my oldest friend.  And I clung to my friend in the same way that hair clings to damp skin:  tangled, messy, and not so easily removed.

I was desperation and need and a chasm that seemed only to be filled by the sound of my old friend's voice and I began to come alive again as I started to learn this person.  The only time I was truly animated was when I realized a discovery was on the horizon and I asked more questions.

But who can withstand that kind of heat and pressure?  It's not like turning coal into diamonds.  It's more like an egg in the microwave, so much heat from the oven, so much pressure, the steam created by the cooking egg white and yolk inside of the shell.  It's no wonder things exploded.

But that was "The Before."  Before the email was sent ending a decade-long friendship.  Before enough therapy.  Before I built a new support system.  Before I figured out how to be me again, without the most important people in my life, without the markers and labels that had always defined me:  student, high achiever, friend.

All of that was before "The After."

I suppose it should come as no surprise, given "The Before," that in "The After" my best friend betrayed me.  As though the abandonment during "The Before" was not awful enough, my best friend of six years chose in "The After" to support my oldest friend of 10 years, despite the fact that the two had never met.

And that is why it became "The After."  Because she, my best friend, did not choose me.  Rather, she chose someone who was manipulative, emotionally abusive, who had abandoned me as well.

As I wrote, this should have come as no surprise.  In reality, it [nearly] destroyed our friendship.  And not because of what my best friend intended to do--she wanted to repair the rift between my oldest friend and me.  What she didn't understand at the time is that there is all the difference in the world between our intentions and the consequences of our actions.

And it was her actions that [nearly] destroyed our friendship.

I am not innocent in all of this.  I hacked her email account and I read everything she wrote to this other person.  I'm ashamed of this.  I find this weakness in me humiliating.  And in every word I read, I felt betrayal, dishonor, and a deepening sense of rage.

She insisted that everything she ever wrote was innocent.  That nothing she wrote was dishonoring, that she honestly believed I would not object to anything she told this other person.  Her intent was merely to offer support and help this person process in the hopes of restoring the friendship.

It did not read that way.

Every word carried in it the painfully acidic sting of betrayal and bile rising in the back of my throat.

So, finally, I told her that I wanted nothing to do with her ever again.  She had made her choice.  The other friendship was over, and continued contact with this person only kept it ever-present in my mind.  I wanted it finished and over, and if she continued to have contact with this individual, then I would never have contact with her again.  I did not need this person in my life, and I did not want her to play the intermediary.

And her response was, "Of course I choose you!"

She ended contact with the other person.  Or so she said.  At some point, I confessed that I had hacked her account and read their correspondence.  But I had stopped.

We started to rebuild our friendship.  We worked through a lot.  We got onto a path of mutuality and reciprocity once again.

But it's different.

Every time something goes wrong, or plans are changed (usually last minute), or she's running 5 minutes late, I'm right back to "The After."  I think, "Of course I can't trust her.  She lied to me once.  She betrayed my trust.  What makes me think she's going to follow through this time?  What makes me think she can be trusted now?"

And there are times I might get a little pissy about being cast aside like a used and unwanted toy; times when I might withdraw while I try to figure out why I keep trying at all.

Inevitably, I end up deciding that choosing to trust and continuing to invest are worth it.

I'm beginning to wonder if I do not have a deep-seated masochistic streak in me after all.

I often wonder if I continue trying because I'm simply afraid of what my life would like if she were not a part of it.  What would I miss in her life?  What would I miss if I couldn't share parts of my life with her?

Then, that email.  First, the apology.  No big deal.  I put it out of my mind and forgot about it.  For six blissful weeks.

Then, that email, re-initiating the friendship.

And all of "The After" was back full force.  All of the questions of friendship and loyalty and love.

See, in the beginning, I ignored what was written between the two of them because somehow I got it stuck in my mind that if she could, somehow, magically, fix things between me and my oldest friend, then everything between her and me would magically be fixed as well.  If she could fix that relationship, then, somehow, all of her betrayals, in "The Before" and "The After," would be justified.

When it only served to damage our friendship more, I drew a line in the sand.

Though my best friend's contact with my oldest friend ended (or so she told me), somehow, that magical thinking did not end.

Here I am.  Two years after "The After" ended, and when I got that email, I had one thought:

Either she's been lying to me for the past 3 years and has maintained contact with this other person or her efforts were in vain because this person reached the point of reconciliation on their own, and she betrayed our friendship for nothing.

And it brings up all kinds of questions about my friendship with the nerd--because my best friend introduced us.  Is she in the middle of this now?  Is she going to him behind my back?  Does she share my secrets?  If he asks her about something in our friendship, or if he doesn't get me, does he ask her?  And if he does, does she claim Swiss citizenship as she's promised?  Or does she answer him and nudge him along in the name of friendship?  With the intentions of smoothing the path and making my friendship with the nerd easier?

One might ask why I would post this blog rather than simply working this out with her.  The answer is two-fold:

1) It's not really her issue.  This is about me and my trust issues.
2) She's far too busy this time of year to give me the time and engage the conversation fully and honestly.

I'm left wondering if sheer force of will can heal what seems to be so deeply broken in my heart.