Where should 'don't say gay' stop?

Missouri 'Don't Mention Mormons' Bill: GOP Sponsors Wary Of 'Mormon Agenda'

Republican lawmakers in Missouri are defending their controversial bill to ban the teaching of religious philosophy in schools as a way to prevent students from learning about the "Mormon agenda," the "Christian conspiracy" and the occult.

A group of 20 Republican state representatives introduced the so-called "don't mention Mormons" bill last week to prevent the teaching of religious philosophy in public schools, with the exception of classes relating to the founding of America. Tennessee legislators have been debating a similar proposal.

"When it comes to religion, that is a discussion that should be left for the most part up to the parents," House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Andrew Koenig (R-Winchester) told HuffPost. "It is a pretty political subject. I know there are a lot of parents that do not want the Mormon agenda taught in the schools."

Koenig said he has heard of what he called a "Mormon agenda" being taught in elementary school, but when questioned, said he did not know of specific incidents "off the top of my head."

"I have heard of instances with story books in grade school where it has come up," Koenig said. "You have Christians pushing an agenda, and you have Mormons pushing an agenda."

Koenig said he wants to amend the proposal to allow for the teaching of Mormon issues in current events classes.

State Rep. Steve Cookson (R-Fairdealing), the bill's principal author, was not available for comment. Cookson's assistant, Agnes Rackers, said Cookson rarely speaks to people from outside his southeastern Missouri district.

"He will probably not get around to calling you back since you are not in his district," Rackers told HuffPost.

A staffer in Tilley's office said he did not have time to speak until Wednesday afternoon.

House Small Business Committee Chairman Dwight Scharnhorst (R-St. Louis), a co-sponsor, said he believes religious issues should be taught by parents and clergy. Parents have been passing along responsibility for children to the public schools, Scharnhorst said.

Scharnhorst told HuffPost that teaching about Mormon issues would lead to other discussions. "There is no need to talk about Billy wanting to marry fifty women or become a god over his own planet," he said.

State Rep. Stephen Webber (D-Columbia), a leading opponent of the bill, said he is not surprised by its introduction because Missouri Republicans have been wanting to limit discussion of Mormon issues. Webber pointed to the defeat of his bill to ban discrimination based on religious affiliation for the past several years. He said that while some Republicans have privately expressed support for the bill, political concerns prevent them from voting for it.

Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers have been pushing to add gun owners to the list of residents who cannot be discriminated against in the workplace. He said the presence of Republican leaders on the religious philosophy education bill sends a signal to him.

"It is not a fringe thing," Webber said of the legislation.

Koenig said he disagreed with the gun owners bill and Webber's legislation, saying that he believes the list of protected classes should not be made lengthy to avoid burdening the small business community. He said that it should be limited to racial and gender discrimination. Scharnhorst said he is against Webber's bill for similar reasons.

Koenig said he believes students being bullied because of their religious affiliation should be allowed to discuss it with counselors.

Scharnhorst stressed that his support of the bill should not be confused with his personal beliefs about the Mormon community.

"I'm not bigoted," he told HuffPost. "I have friends who are Mormon."

UPDATE: April 24, 11:46 a.m. -- State Rep. Steve Cookson released a statement Tuesday morning explaining his sponsorship of the "don't mention Mormons" bill and why he does not view it as discriminatory. He said that he believes the bill's intent has been misreported in the media and that the bill's purpose is to shift discussion of religion out of the schools.

"Many of the recent articles on HB 2051 have shifted focus away from the true intent of my legislation, which is meant to protect the moral values that are most important to Missouri families. In a time when our public schools continue to struggle financially, we want their focus to be solely on core education issues such as math, science and reading; and not on topics that are better left for discussion in the home at the discretion of parents," Cookson said in the statement.

"It's also important to point out that my bill does not target a particular religion but instead says instruction or materials related to any religious philosophy should not take place in our public schools. This would not prohibit a student struggling with his or her religious identity from talking to a school counselor or cause any of the other issues that have been misreported by the media. Instead it would simply ensure the focus of our public schools is on the curriculum parents expect their children to learn when they send them to school each day."


[This is an adapted version of: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/23/missouri-dont-say-gay-bill_n_1447121.html]





Tennessee lawmakers advance 'don't mention Mormons' bill


NASHVILLE – A bill to restrict teaching about Mormonism before high school cleared its first hurdle in the state House of Representatives, setting the stage for a second year of debate on the appropriate way to handle discussion about Latter-day Saints with schoolchildren.

The House Education subcommittee approved the so-called "Don't mention Mormons" bill on a voice vote Wednesday, renewing a debate that roiled the legislature last spring over whether elementary and middle schools should be allowed to initiate discussions about Mormonism.


Opponents say it will not curb talk about Mormonism among grade school kids but will send the signal that it should be stigmatized. But several lawmakers argued that it would protect parents' right to educate their children about their beliefs on their own terms.


"The basic right as an American is my right to life, my right to liberty and my right to the pursuit of happiness," said state Rep. John DeBerry, D-Memphis, arguing to keep the subject of Mormonism out of elementary school classrooms. "Within that includes being able to run my home, raise my children as I see fit and to indoctrinate them as I see fit."


The measure, labeled "Don't mention Mormons" by its opponents, has proved to be one of the most emotionally charged bills to go before the Tennessee legislature in recent years. Mormon groups have led opposition to the bill, but many Nashville high school students have turned out as well.


Several dozen students, many of them wearing white shirts and ties, lined the rows of seating in the hearing room Wednesday to show their disagreement with the measure. Their numbers led the subcommittee to relocate the hearing to a larger room.


"To me, they're sending a message that in society LDS people aren't really equal," said Thomas Kibby, a student at Hume-Fogg High School. "This law would be kind of moving backwards."


The bill's original sponsor, state Rep. Bill Dunn, R-Knoxville, added an amendment that lined up the House version with the version that passed the Senate last year. He said the new wording should dispel "hysteria" that has surrounded the issue.


"What this amendment does is keep us in line with current curriculum," he said. "This bill, if amended, does not prohibit the use of the word 'Mormon,' it does not change the anti-bullying statute, and it does not prohibit a school guidance counselor from discussing the issues of spirituality with a student."


The Rev. Thomas Kleinert, pastor of Vine Street Christian Church in Nashville, said the bill would discourage discussions about a subject that children hear about constantly.


"Our children have to deal with that complexity long before they've reached sufficient maturity," he said. "Silence in the classroom only adds to the cloak of pain and shame, whereas open, age-appropriate conversation may give them a chance and the courage to talk to an adult they trust."


Supporters alluded to the emotion of the issue, but they said the principle at stake was ensuring that children receive appropriate instruction in a publicly funded setting.


"We put 'phobia' on the end of words, and then we automatically demonize someone who has an opposing view," DeBerry said. "What this bill does is it says everybody has the right to train their children."


[This is an adapted version of: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-16/tennessee-bill-homosexuality/53116470/1]

Marine Homecomings (context)

Conversion therapy's elusive unicorn

From Facebook:
----------------------
In response to comments in a previous post, this describes my experience and perspective well.

Former Love in Action Director: I’ve never met a man who experienced a change from homosexual to heterosexual
John Smid was once the director of Love in Action a longtime Exodus International affiliate based in Memphis, TN. I have always found John’s candor refreshing. My first contact with John was at an Exodus meeting where he questioned the slogan, “change is possible.”

O-Mo Whatever the cause of homosexuality/same-sex attractions, whatever the life choices, and whatever the malleability or future possibilities of change through therapy techniques and neuroscience yet to be discovered, the reality of _today_, as I see it, is that people do not change from mostly same-sex attracted/gay to mostly opposite-sex attracted/straight. Some claim to have changed but later recant, and a few have staked their income and reputation in the claim and persist in it. But when pressed, I have found more wordsmithing and perspective reframing for functional/behavioral change or cognitive adjustment than actual change in attractions. Still, I don't believe this should be used as ammunition to shoot down someone's personal, honest, carefully considered direction for their life in congruence with their beliefs, values, desires, and goals.

Guy1 People make this so damn complicated.... :-P for me it all boils down to what gets you off. ;) I've never had a conflict of faith and sexuality, of course, so I don't really understand the intricacies involved...to me, it seems like a simple no-brainer.

O-Mo Afterthought: While my observation matches his, I would not say, as he does, that "none of this can occur with homosexuality" with a more accurate, "I have never seen it occur."

Gal1 I agree... This brings up some very intruguing differences between attraction and behavior. Attraction - well, there's no need to "repent" of that, since it's something you can't change. Behavior, however, is something you are always accountable for. People will try to reason their way out of a lot of things, but ultimately you are the one in control of your actions.
I also like the point made toward the end of the article, that it is possible to be in love with someone you are not sexually attracted to. It's an interesting thought, in a culture that overexaggerates the importance of sexuality. When it really comes down to it, there is SO much more to love, true love anyway. If it's just sexuality involved, that is lust. Big difference.

O-Mo Yeah, Guy1, I've run into that same confusion with others who either were not raised in a homosexuality-shunning church or left at an early age. I don't know how to convey it. But even without religious conflicts, I've known some to struggle with what they really want.

Guy2 This is some good stuff O-Mo. I've actually had a lot of these thoughts on my mind the past few days. I have found so much peace and happiness finally in my life doing exactly what I have always been taught was wrong. Letting go of that "battle" between good and evil and just following what I feel is right in my heart has been such a blessing for me.

Guy1 I grew up in small-town mid-america. I never knew what gay was until I got online at the age of 15... I always knew what I found attractive, though. Perhaps it was because I grew up with such a streak of individuality that being gay never really bothered me, even though family and friends spoke ill of it once it started hitting popular culture. My mom tried to get me to go to church and her side of the family is pretty religious, but it never stuck with me. I only went for the grape juice and crackers. I was never able to think of any of the stories as literal...they just seemed like good stories and I enjoyed reading all sorts of books back then.

I was certainly a prude throughout my teen years and the first couple of college, but that wasn't because I thought I should be with girls! :) They never did anything for me...

O-Mo ‎Gal1, I want my spouse to be passionate with me, and even...dare I say...lusty. ;-) I don't care to downplay sexuality as part of a whole relationship because I really do value it, particularly as an intimate and bonding (not to mention certainly fun!) experience between partners built on trust, familiarity, and mutual investment. But I also know that if I _had_ to choose between sexual passion and, say, open communication or tender affection, sexual passion does not win out as a highest priority. I just hope I don't have to choose. ;-) Incidentally, I do know some guys who, despite still being primarily attracted to men, quite enjoy sexual intimacy with their wives, even if it's often not to the same level as it had been with men. Beliefs, choices, priorities...

O-Mo More on this: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/10/10/37766

Guy1 It's certainly not unheard of to have an open relationship wherein there is emotional intimacy with your primary partner and then the allowance of both parties to have physical intimacy with others outside of the partnership. This happens in many relationship regardless of whether the couple is same orientation or mixed orientation.... Sometimes people love each other deeply and want to build a life together but don't click physically. Certainly isn't a reason to give up the relationship if both parties want to stay together.

I think if more people accepted the idea of "nontraditional" relationships, there would be less of a problem with divorce and you'd see more families sticking together (and being stronger). Just my opinion, of course. :)

O-Mo Ha, true. But again: religious or personal conflicts can prevent that from being considered an option. But that's why I have always found strength in remembering that I am imposing some of my own restrictions and therefore am not merely a victim.

Guy1 Sometimes we must work through conflicts for the betterment of ourselves and our relationships. ;) Flexibility in life is a good thing! Flexibility and conflict...always makes for a good story.

O-Mo It does, indeed. But can you stretch too much too fast and end up spraining something? ;-) Or bend something not meant to be bent and break something you shouldn't have broken? Heh.

Guy1 TIme and lube. Everything's possible with time and lube. (per Dan Savage) :-P

O-Mo NARTH has responded to this notion without actually mentioning it at all: http://narth.com/2011/10/2061/. I see problems in such follow-up studies, mainly that I have known guys who would have put themselves in the "Success: conversion" category who, when I pressed, conceded that their new attraction to women was more a curiosity and 'openness to the possibility' than an actual drive, but since that was more than they'd ever known, they considered it an 'increase in heterosexual attraction'. And...let's just say you needed only watch their eyes at a party to see which sex caught their inadvertent gaze more often. ;-) I also wonder how many respondents are married and therefore are not only self-limited in their life choices and self-identification but are measuring their progress not by generalized attraction but by attraction to their wife, specifically. Increased heterosexual function and intimacy with their spouse is wonderful and should be acknowledged rather than dismissed for political agenda, but I just don't see it as the same thing as 'becoming heterosexual'.

NARTH » Change in Sexual Orientation is Possible
narth.com
Change in Sexual Orientation is Possible, Harm Unlikely, according to New Eviden...See More

O-Mo Let me clarify one point in my last paragraph: "appropriately and understandably self-limited". :-)

Gal1 You can be just as much a victim of your own "self-limiting" choices as you can from others'... just sayin' :P

Premature Joculation

Mohodom is abuzz over an openly gay member, Mitch Mayne, being called to serve with the bishopric (as executive secretary) in a bay area ward. My understanding is that Mitch was in a long-term relationship with a man until about a year ago, during at least part of which he was active in his ward and held a calling, and...well, read it yourself in his open letter. He's currently single and celibate, open to a future relationship (though exactly what kind of relationship is [possibly deliberately] vague), and committed to the "same standard of behavior that we require of any heterosexual member in a Priesthood leadership position." Enter my skeptical brow.

Don't get me wrong: an openly, unapologetically gay man was called to work closely with the bishopric, which may not be new but is certainly getting more attention than most and is another testament against the notions of some members that anyone who doesn't renounce and deny their very attractions is unworthy of any leadership, and that's very cool. But I think people are jumping the gun in declaring this to be a revolutionary move. For example, does he mean he will have a romantic but nonsexual relationship with a man? Does he mean he intends to have a sexual relationship with a man when they're married or in a civil union? Is the latter a completely different scenario than the first, and would it be a dealbreaker if he were asked point blank and answered with the latter? Is the former even acceptable to church headquarters? Or is the whole thing being taken a day at a time, focusing on his current compliance and worthiness, without projecting unnecessarily into the completely unknown future? I want to correct those who oversimplify: "Of course he has a calling: he's committed to chastity like everyone else." Yet when people sound victory charges for "openly gay" members to serve in church leadership, my "let's wait and see what this means before declaring social revolution" gear kicks in.

Yes, if Mitch marries a woman someday, he's golden. His open letter doesn't seem to preclude that option, and you never know what life might bring. But his views on homosexuality being inextricably part of him (not that I believe heterosexuality is a prerequisite to marrying a woman, but that's a can of worms for another post) combined with his insistence that he will be forthcoming with his leadership about his relationship status (which wouldn't be necessary for non-gay folk) lead me to believe the future relationship he's open to is most likely same-sex. If you combine that with his statement that he does not plan to intentionally spend the rest of his life celibate or single, I see a dilemma.

I know many individuals who believe the church's stance on same-sex relationships will change with time, but cleverly wordsmithing or reinterpreting temple ceremonies or the Proclamation on the Family still amounts to speculation. The church officially prohibits sexual relationships outside of man-woman marriage (long-term romantic, non-orgasmic relationships between members of the same sex are not as clearly addressed but are also slightly more common than unicorns). I'm not saying that could never change: perhaps, before I die, the church will welcome time-only same-sex partners (whether God-disapproved-married or civilly unified) into some form of meaningful fellowship, but I'm speaking in terms of today.

I just don't believe that when general authorities say members who experience "same-gender attraction" are to adhere to the same standards of sexual conduct as everyone else, what they mean is, "sure, they can date and make out like everyone else and then make each other ejaculate to their homo hearts' content once they obtain the kind of civil contract we have explicitly and vehemently opposed as being not marriage at all." I think those who believe church leaders are saying gay members should just save sex until they're married to members of the same sex should not mask or mince their words and should say so clearly and publicly...and see how church leadership responds.

So the concern I have is that despite Mitch's effort to be open and honest, there are many unanswered questions, the answers to which may likely conflict with assumptions or extrapolations many are making, e.g.:

• he intends to be either celibate or with a woman for the rest of his life,
• the local leadership called him knowing he intends to be with a man again someday,
• he was officially called as a counselor in the bishopric, or
• he was in full fellowship while in a romantic and sexual relationship with another man and church headquarters was OK with that.

I believe those assumptions to be common and understandable, given Mitch's open letter and subsequent coverage. Some of them may even be correct. But nobody has done the aggressive journalism to answer them. So they're still unanswered. And I don't think their implications are incidental or irrelevant when the calling is being framed as a bold representation of progress in the role of gay members in church leadership.

I do think the _discussion_, far disproportionate to the situation itself, is going to make waves and change paradigms. That's how activism works, so from that standpoint, I get it. I actually appreciate JonJon's response to the issue.

I say let Mitch serve quietly (although let's be honest, Mitch, you threw "quietly" aside with your open letter...actually, I think you kind of threw it up in the air and demolished it with rockets *wink*), wait and see, and get the details before portraying it as if the Catholic Church just handpicked a bishop from a pride parade's leather daddies contingent.

Rekers is not 'gay' and never has been (now with video!)

So he says, and he's reportedly threatening legal action over being defamed as "gay". Goodness gracious, has anyone bothered to ask him, then, if he "experiences same-sex attraction"? I mean, everyone knows "gay" means "actively seeking same-sex romantic and/or sexual companionship or partnership", which has nothing to do with arousing but non-sexual rub-downs by attractive, young luggage assistants for 10 days in Europe. Getting touched by a hot stud isn't "sexual" if nobody ever climaxes, never mind whether certain manparts are "at attention" because we all know that just "happens" and needn't be considered "erotic". Why don't people get that?

***waiting for the one or two of you who just said, "Amen!" to notice my tongue firmly planted in my cheek...***

Don't get me wrong: I, myself, have insisted that just because Mr. Perky says, "I'm ready!" doesn't mean you're intent on going at it, nor that what you're doing is necessarily "sexual". For example, I got all hot and bothered once while sitting on a full couch watching a movie with my mostly exposed arm pressed against the really buff, mostly exposed arm of an acquaintance with a hot physique, but you could hardly say sitting on the couch next to each other was sexual activity. Had he made a move (even if there hadn't been 5 other people there), I would've pushed him off and yelled "rape!" because my heart and brain didn't really want to go there, regardless of Mr. Perky obeying only my raging hormones. But when we're talking about nude massages daily, with genital caressing and persistent arousal throughout (a claim reportedly made by the hired young man in a phone interview with a well-known blogger), that's a whole different story, folks.

This is a bit much to defend, assuming anything the escort is saying is actually true, which is likely since Dr. Rekers, himself, hasn't denied it and has evaded clarification by using words to which he probably ascribes non-standard definitions, such as "sexual" (messy), "inappropriate" (unable to be justified against the inerrant word of Baptism using contortions of motives and pliable word definitions), and "gay" (Pride prancer).

In all seriousness...or at least sincerity, I can easily believe Rekers doesn't have "sex" ("that which finishes in spilled seed") with his escort(s). I can believe he considers their massage activity "non-sexual" by his own conscience-easing definition (as above). I can believe he hoped to teach the young man the joy of leaving the homosexual lifestyle (and instead paying for massage by hot young guys for the rest of his life). I can believe he hoped to share the "gospel" with the young man (ask any repressed BYU boy: it's much more comforting to test boundaries with someone who shares your beliefs).

I know it sounds like crazy excuses to a lot of people, but most people don't "get" the mind of a repressed, conservatively religious homosexual. He may very well be sincere. Now, if what the escort claims really occurred, it is certainly not "normal" behavior. But what's "normal" isn't always right or best or healthy. Sometimes, what's abnormal is healthy or helpful for someone in abnormal circumstances. Truly. I can even believe he might not view nude massages including genitalia as "inappropriate", which brings me to my concern. Yes, there's a point to all of this rambling!

I think one big reason I'm so interested in this story is that while Dr. Rekers' justifications or "explanations" sound foolish to many people, they're not entirely unlike lines of thinking I've heard among certain individuals in gay LDS circles. While part of me wants to defend him and tell people to stop being so presumptuous in assuming he actually had sex with the guy, as if nobody would ever hire an escort and not do the nasty with them, another part of me is concerned that some friend or acquaintance of mine may, one day, find himself in the kind of mess this man is in, either not seeing how very abnormal his behavior is or lying about secret behaviors in a double life (again, assuming what the escort describes actually happened).

Despite being skeptical of certain underlying theories, I don't oppose certain practices, such as (theoretically) therapeutic holding, which may seem "weird" to people who don't understand the circumstances, context, and underlying theory. And to be clear, "holding therapy" is a totally different ballpark from genital massages. I don't think everyone who subscribes to reparative theories or certain therapies of homosexuality is simply justifying getting his jollies and calling it "male bonding". There are practices which don't involve odd behavior and which may be helpful in certain ways despite my skepticism of the theories behind them. But some acquaintances have exerted so much effort immersing themselves in repressive lines of thought, or seeking out contact with other men in ways which definitely bring motives into question, that I worry they'll be lulled into the kind of self-deception which heaps on layers of masks and eventually reveals itself decades down the road in scandals like this. Let's just make sure we're trying to be honest and accountable with ourselves and with others and trying to keep our motives in check, OK boys? OK.

Enough about this. I'm going to the gym to hang out at the hot tub for an hour then sit in the locker room sauna facing the showers for another hour to connect with the men who chat with me. Then I'll watch an uplifting movie and spoon semi-nude with a friend for some intimate, non-sexual bonding time, and we'll caress each other while discussing how there is no joy in same-sex relationships...



Note: FYI, NARTH has released a statement on the issue.



Update: I couldn't NOT post this video from CNN's AC360:

Anti Gay Rights Lobbyist's Hot, Young Travel Stud...er...Assistant

Note: if you're susceptible to provocative images and want to avoid such, you should probably stick to the sites I've linked to in my post and NOT follow links from there to other sites referenced. Just giving you a heads up.


I wasn't going to comment on this because I was sure moho blogs would be buzzing about it, but so far, I've only seen a mention or two in moho blogging circles. What's the story? An officer of the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality and co-founder of the Family Research Council, Dr. George Rekers, is embroiled in a scandal unleashed by The Miami New Times (the credibility of which source I don't know): he was photographed on vacation with a young man who was discovered to be an online male escort.

Gay blogs have been abuzz over this for the last day or two, mostly lambasting Rekers and presuming him guilty of all manner of whoredom. Predictably, Dr. Rekers released a statement in response, on his own blog. Of course, that statement is now revised from what it originally was. He originally said claims that he hired the young man as a prostitute were false and that he just needed someone to carry his luggage. He also said several family members and friends offer to help him. He did deny that anything illegal or sexual happened between them. Of course, that doesn't mean nothing involving "healthy touch" didn't happen. Maybe a little healthy massage, which happens to take place in the nude? According to the escort, that's what happened. But hey, he could be just an escort seeking a moment of fame to take down a staunch gay rights opponent. Oddly, Rekers did not specifically deny having used the escort service web site or knowing the boy was an escort until after the boy came out saying Dr. Rekers is gay and received nude massages daily at the hot young stud's hands (I read his statement on his own blog when the story initially broke and again after seeing a BBC article on the subject, and the statement had been revised).

But I've gotta say, while I know some people who are just eccentric and would do the sort of thing this guy is saying he was doing--spending time with sinners hoping to share the gospel and the happiness of "leaving homosexuality"--even if he does honestly think his motives were pure, even if he didn't knowingly hire an escort for a little homoerotic (even if "non-sexual"--which is often little more than code for "I didn't ejaculate") male companionship, and even if it's true he hired the boy through some means other than the sexually graphic web site the boy's profile is on, and even if the boy is lying about the naked massages, I have to say I think Rekers has let his repressed desires express themselves here. But then, that's only my hunch. Short of a confession on his part (which seems highly unlikely), or hard evidence (also unlikely), this is, at best, an eccentric decision from which he can't possibly be surprised there are repercussions.

That said, what if he's really just an eccentric old man who wanted someone to travel with who could help with his luggage and wouldn't cost too much? What if nothing sexual or "inappropriate" happened between them? What if he appreciates the company of attractive young men and did hope to bring one of them into the fold of the Kingdom and help him realize there are alternatives for his life other than selling his body? What if he wanted the boy to realize someone could appreciate him as a person, not just a plaything? I know it's a stretch because most of us would certainly not have paid for a hot, young travel companion without ulterior motives, but what if he really believed his heart was in the right place? What if he were your dad? I'm not being cheeky, here. He could just be a dirty, hypocritical old man who needs to be removed from his pedestal of power from which he stomps the rights of gay people everywhere. But I'm just saying it's easy to call into question the integrity of someone you don't know, but most of the time, the story is a bit more complicated than it appears.

8: The Mormon Proposition - Tooth-Gnashing Extravaganza

Disclaimer: This is not my most diplomatic post ever. I'm not going to refrain from posting some potentially controversial thoughts to make sure my readers have something fun and fluffy to read. If you are prone to take offense where none is intended or to read into people's words your own perceptions of what people who say such things are like or what their motives are, you might consider skipping this post or finding a nice, relaxing activity to lower your blood pressure after reading. I will not be intimidated into silence by those who are supposedly looking after my best interest. Progress comes from conflict and constructive criticism, which is what I am attempting. Sue me if I don't pull it off. I'm genetically flawed.



Same-sex marriage supporters everywhere (at least in Utah) are buzzing about the documentary called 8: The Mormon Proposition. Some are touting it as a groundbreaking, bold exposé on the lies and underhanded tactics used to pass Proposition 8 in California, and the vast Mormon conspiracy against equality in an effort to subdue the nefarious homo uprising supposedly seeking to undermine and destroy society! I was intrigued, so I looked up the trailer on YouTube, and for the first minute or so I was really confused: opening the trailer with Chris Buttars, some Utah state senator who is too cantankerous about homos even for most conservatives? Then showing tightly cropped clips of Elder Ballard saying, "When something needs to be done, we know how to do it" all sinister-like? This felt somewhat like a flipside of those ridiculous "I am afraid" NOM ads, but more emotionally charged and using real people instead of those awful, plasticky actors. I was mildly puzzled until I figured out...it must be a sort of mockumentary! Of course! I then didn't feel bad about laughing out loud at a couple of clips.



I'm sorry, I couldn't help it. Actually, I'm not so sorry. I couldn't help but laugh at a couple of clips of over-the-top statements or sensational editing. I mean, I know many people regard this as the great civil rights battle of our time and can't understand how anyone could see it otherwise. I can't fathom someone laughing at Civil Rights Movement proponents in the south as they passionately decry the inequality forced upon them. "Ha ha! Look at those silly black people and their overwrought emotions!" Obviously (today), racial prejudice and fighting for rights based on ethnic background is nothing to mock. When you're dealing with a population which feels downtrodden or which is (undeniably) denied certain rights, obligations, and protections based on sexual orientation or the sexes of partners, that's a real issue with real emotions not to be scorned. This isn't about mocking those silly, drama queen homos (though I think there are plenty of drama queens out there who would do well to take it down a notch). And I am not going to defend my stance on same-sex marriage or other rights based on sexual orientation or partnerships here because that's not the issue. This is about something more, something aside from fighting for equal protection, rights, and obligations. In fact, as I see it, it's about my thinking many in the gay community are shooting themselves in the foot with all of the gnashing of teeth.

I don't mean to be insensitive to the real hurt people feel around this. It's just that some things they say are so old and tired and nonsensical that...I'm sorry (kind of), they're laughable! "They don't want us to love," for example. I don't even care to dignify that nonsense with a rebuttal. Saying that is completely missing the issue in most cases! Do some of you actually believe that's what it's about, or are you just being deliberately emotionally manipulative because you're either out of logical arguments or are convinced nobody's listening? Another common sentiment I hear is one a good-looking, sympathetic guy says in the film trailer, "I can't believe that people could hate us this much. ... I'm a good person!" That's an understandable emotional reaction, I suppose, though I don't identify with it myself, but it's something I'd expect to hear out of a teenage girl. I do sometimes feel like crying when I hear someone speak like him because I feel terrible for them that they are so hurt and that they see it that way: their pain is very real and not something to laugh at. I might rather hug that guy than argue with him when he's in that emotional state. But the statement is a bit logically absurd. Believing marriage is and always was intended to be a religious institution preserved for man-woman pairings and that government should not change that does not equate to hatred just because the two admittedly do coincide in some people. I can only hope that maybe some Prop 8 supporters who see that clip, which I believe to be sincere, may recognize the need for more compassion, even if their opinion or political stance doesn't change. But compassion isn't, I don't think, what the filmmakers are after. They're after political change, are they not?

Which brings me to a side note: this blog is public and can be discovered by people searching for content related to the film, so it's conceivable (though probably quite unlikely, considering I'm just a teeny blip in cyberspace with few readers) that someone involved with the film could come to my blog and read this. I have tried to temper my language, to present a complete response, not my initial, more flippant and dismissive, emotional response to the trailer. Nevertheless, I am probably an enemy to their cause, having written this. I may lose readers because I'm posting this. Some may feel betrayed. Battle lines are drawn, and there's no time for fence-sitters or switch-hitters who aren't "yes men". "You're either with us or you're against us" seems to be the message from my most ardently activist friends. I even wonder, if I were more public/influential and less tempered, if some activists wouldn't do all they can to discover my true identity, make threats, lash out in various ways, try to shut me up through intimidation or harsh criticism, or campaign against people like me who don't jump on the train and toe the line. And no, this has nothing to do with Elder Oaks' talk. I've seen such behaviors firsthand long before Elder Oaks compared them (insensitively and inappropriately, in my opinion) to intimidation during the civil rights movement. I've been petitioned to join boycotts and publicize the names of donors to 8, etc. I declined. That all seemed beside the point, too. Though some more prominent members of the Church have butted heads with and felt the swift, hard action of church headquarters, I feel more threatened and vulnerable opposing gay activists than I do opposing church leaders. But screw it, I'm going to call it as I see it.

I won't completely poo-poo the film based on the fact that the sensational trailer made me laugh. And I admit I may possibly be partially using this film as my punching bag for the consistent pattern I've observed among my friends who are passionate about this issue. People I like and respect in many ways are close to people who were involved in the film. While I may disagree with a lot of their rhetoric or approach or even their beliefs, I can still like and respect them as a person, but I've been informed that if I don't support marriage "equality", I don't love my gay friends and should remove myself from their lives. That seems awfully narrow-minded to me, but I figure that's more an emotional statement than a rational one, so I let it go and figure I'll let them make the call if I were to ever vote to "preserve" marriage as between a man and a woman.

I don't doubt a lot of hard work has gone into the project, and people have likely invested much of themselves. I know what that's like, so I don't criticize such an undertaking ignorant of how much work has gone into it. I've helped build an organization I whole-heartedly believed would help save lives and contribute to the emotional well-being of many people and would increase education and understanding and family unity, and I've listened to some very harsh criticisms of the organization and its founders, including declarations that it is harmful and deceptive or mockery aimed at those who are part of it, but that's to be expected. The attacks are inherently impersonal, since those making them generally don't know me, and the rational criticisms are such that I've taken them into consideration and thought, "Is there validity to that claim? If so, how can we respond to make appropriate corrections? If not, how can we more accurately present what we're about?" Not everyone will agree with your aim, or your philosophy, or your methods, and some will believe you're doing an amazing work, and others will only see the flaws. I don't intend personal assaults or degradation on those who were a part of this film. My criticisms, you may notice, aren't about value judgments of the people involved but criticisms of the methodology and balance, or the lack of logic in the statements of some of the subjects.

I tried to watch the trailer open-minded, despite expecting the film to be at least somewhat sensational based on the rhetoric of some of its proponents. I see that, if nothing else, it may very effectively present a common viewpoint. I just doubt it will be seen by more than a select few of those to whom that viewpoint would be new or eye-opening because it doesn't command the attention of those who don't already agree with it. It doesn't seem to even care about meeting them in the middle, so does it even deserve to be given a fair chance by them?

I mean, come on, folks, if you want to present something even mildly convincing to your opponents, you're gonna have to show that you at least partially understand where they are coming from. Otherwise, what reason are you giving them to show you such respect and consideration? I've said this to both the supporters and opponents of Prop 8. I've become pretty thoroughly convinced it's a futile effort to keep making this point, so I've largely backed off from trying to get either side to see the other's viewpoint. They, by and large, just don't care. Get a grip, activists on both sides, or you'll just look like a bunch of ignorant ninnies on a playground making asses of yourselves, providing a good laugh along the way to the people "in the middle" you're supposedly trying to reach out to. But maybe I have it all wrong. Maybe the film isn't about reaching out and is precisely about making an angry voice known. If so, it should be advertised as such.

FYI, this is from the perspective of someone who didn't support Prop 8 and thought there must be a better way to satisfy both sides and found plenty to criticize in both sides of the campaign, but more so in its promulgation by "Yes on 8". I am interested neither in circling the Church wagons nor gay rights activist wagons where Prop 8 is concerned. But most seem to be doing just that: since a cultural war is on, stakes are high, and emotions are heated, and rational analysis and real dialog seem to be sacrificed to quicker, easier tools on both sides. Maybe that's what it really comes down to: maybe logic and dialog have been tried and failed (could've fooled me), and it's time for war. It's time not for logic, not truth, but popular opinion bolstered by emotion. I worry this documentary is just another example of that, but I sincerely hope I'm wrong. Maybe the trailer isn't indicative of the greater film. I can only hope.




Note: For a post and comments about this on another blog, see Limits on A Mormon Enigma.

Gay Kissers Reveal Their Deception

My suspicion that the little hug and kiss on Temple Square in Salt Lake City was more than a little hug and kiss appears to be confirmed if a new official statement from the Church is accurate.

Of course, this is largely subjective. Some people think groping includes hands low on the waist, while others think it can be deemed so only with a full-on crotch-grab. We probably have two fairly extreme perspectives on what is "appropriate" from the church and from these guys.

As the Salt Lake Tribune reports:

"I guess they consider hugging groping," Aune said Friday. "Regardless of if a kiss is on the cheek or on the lips, it still is not inappropriate -- unless you are gay, according to the LDS Church."

Aune said he held Jones' hand in the plaza and gave him a kiss on the face.

You know, I'm normally fair and try to give people the benefit of the doubt because people's subjective understanding is different. For example, if we pretend for a moment that he comes from a social circle where revealing clothing is the norm and passionate kissing is just what everyone does all the time and you're not crossing over into lewd until you have your hand in someone's pants, then certainly he very well may believe he would be justified and 'appropriate' in, for example, passionate kissing with full pelvic contact and hands rubbing up and down his partner's back. But at this point, after they've initially claimed it was hand-holding, followed by admitting to a kiss on the cheek, followed by now calling it a kiss on the face and saying there shouldn't be a difference between a kiss on the cheek or the lips, I'm just gonna say my suspicion is confirmed and call bulls#$% on this dude.

Further reflecting on his probably warped view of reality is the following quote from the same article:

Aune said, "I think anyone who was detained against their will in the way we were ... would be upset."

And "be upset" = "swear and revile against the steward of the private property you have been asked to leave"? Well, little man, I guess you live in a world where your emotional reaction justifies unseemly behavior or belligerent reaction. I don't. I live in a world where I choose my actions, and even when I believe I have been mistreated, I am not exonerated from acting like an ass. You, sir, seem to reflect degraded moral character in your, "what did I do?" rhetoric. "Victim" my a--...nkles.

Do I blindly accept the church's explanation and dismiss any suspicion that the guards did with a gay couple what they would have done with any mixed-sex couple? No. I still don't believe the standard of behavior is the same for same-sex couples, and I think the church will eat those words if they continue to stand by them. I think there is a double standard, and the church should either change it or own it. But I think the church has made a smart move here. It's too bad they were forced into a corner from which they were compelled to call the men out on their apparently downplayed portrayal of their PDA. If these Tribune quotes are accurate, it sounds like the boys know they're caught.

I wonder if they'll continue to challenge the church on the reality of the story. We're apparently still waiting to see if security cameras caught anything. If they force it, might the church release video footage? Can these boys stand up to such evidence? Will they instead acknowledge their initial deception but focus on the actions of the guards as patently discriminatory by dealing with them in a way they can't prove they've dealt with mixed-sex couples? Do they realize the risk of taking on the Church's formidable legal and PR departments?

Maybe we'll find out. But I'm not losing any sleep over it.




Other related news:

Second 'kiss-in' planned at SLC Temple

Police report on men's plaza kiss released

Gay incident reopens Salt Lake City's Main Street plaza wounds


Update over at Northern Lights:

LDS Newsroom: “Church Clarifies Record on Plaza Incident”

No O-Mo Kiss-In Coverage

Well, I overrode my photojournalistic curiosity with other plans, so I have no idea how the Kiss-In went other than this Deseret News article. Sounds like things went well and peacefully. That's all I have for now. I've gotta get to work on making a pie, followed by some flooring installation, followed by either dinner or a concert (haven't decided), followed by loitering. No more time or energy for political stuff today. :-)

Temple Square Smackdown on the Kissy Kissy

Uh-oh, it looks like the Church's PR department has a mini-nightmare to deal with. I'm not talking about the seminary principal who was arrested earlier this week on charges of sexual relations with a 16-year-old girl. That's just some dude being a disgusting predator, and I would guess he has no such known history, or he wouldn't be in that position, though I don't know. But the newest incident is a little closer to home: right between the Salt Lake Temple and the Church Office Building, on the Main Street Plaza area of the complex. A gay couple was asked to leave the grounds of church headquarters after a security guard observed them hugging and kissing there, which was deemed inappropriate conduct. The story has been posted by various news organizations, including The Salt Lake Tribune, The Daily Herald, ABC 4, KSL, Deseret News, and The Huffington Post, among others, including a personal account.

I'm often interested in or even entertained by the ways different news organizations choose to report incidents like this and the different tidbits of information you get from them.

ABC4 reports:

"They say they were assaulted when LDS Church security told them to leave, but they refused and asked why.

So what transpired after these innocent lovers quietly and respectfully asked why? It's awful:

“The next thing we know, I'm being forced onto the ground on my stomach, my face is on the pavement, they handcuffed me and they grab Matt and try to get him into handcuffs," says Jones.

Tried. So what you're saying is...there was enough resistance on their part to make it a challenge for security guards to get handcuffs on them? Interesting.

KSL quotes a blog written by Derek, one of the men, regarding Matt, the other:

Matt then tried to get them to admit they were singling us out because they just didn't approve of ‘gay' public displays of affection, baiting them into revealing their bigotry."

OK, so let's sort out a couple of things here:

1. These men walked onto private property owned by a church whose stance on homosexual relations is clearly known to the world.

2. They hugged and kissed. It's unclear to me, at least, whether it was, as a few sources have reported, just a kiss on the cheek, and I doubt the security guard or the church is about to get into a debate over what kind of kiss it was. In a way, it doesn't matter, except regarding the church spokesperson's statement (more on that in a moment).

3. When asked to leave the private property they entered and knowingly disrespected (not in doing something inherently bad but in doing something they knew was not condoned by the church and was against its political and moral position), they did not leave the private premises but demanded a reason not because they were clueless but because they wanted to prove a point.

4. When they refused to leave because of some sense of righteous indignation, the only option was to remove them by force, and they even resisted that.

5. The police became involved not because they hugged and kissed each other but because they violated the standards of a private property and refused to leave when asked, making them trespassers by law, regardless of why they were asked to leave.

That said, I could understand the possibility that they were unlucky enough to butt heads with a particularly homophobic and bullheaded security guard who was only too eager to employ physical force against some repugnant sexual deviants defiling sacred ground. It's a possibility that should be investigated by the church, in my opinion, but assuming the story is accurately portrayed by piecing together the various reports, I'm inclined to think that's less likely than the possibility that you had two guys knowingly ruffling feathers, becoming belligerent and refusing to comply when an unamused guard told them to leave, probably in blunt terms. Just my hunch.

Still, I won't go so far as to say they planned the whole thing, but I will not cry over these poor, victimized souls who were beaten down by the man. They knew what they were doing. I think they should stand up and own their disobedience rather than whining like a couple of pansies. But that wouldn't bode well for their "woe is me, I'm an oppressed homosexual" persona to garner sympathy from the public, would it?

In my opinion, if the church wishes to dismiss people from their private grounds for wearing the wrong shade of blue, that's their right. And they should expect backlash. But whether or not you think a homo kiss is the same as a hetero kiss, the church has a right to say it's not and to enforce such policies. The problem, as I see it, is in the church statement that they were "asked to stop engaging in inappropriate behavior just as any other couple would have been." Really? Doesn't that make it sound like any other couple doing what they were doing would be asked to leave? I'm pretty sure I've personally observed hetero couples kissing on the lips for wedding photos right in front of the Church Office Building. I think we all know the notion that heterosexual couples would be asked to leave for hugging and kissing on the cheek, or briefly on the lips, is hooey, so I suppose the way to make a truth of that statement is to interpret it a bit differently: they were asked to cease inappropriate conduct (which for same-sex couples includes hugging, kissing, or holding hands) just like any other couple would be asked to cease inappropriate conduct (which for opposite-sex couples does not include those things). And that's their prerogative to define "inappropriate" behavior however they want on their private property, just as you and I do in our homes.

...or the church spokespeople just didn't have all the facts and assumed this couple really was doing something lewd beyond a simple, quick kiss. Perhaps? Nah, probably not.

So the issue really has less to do with whether they should have been dismissed than whether you agree with the church's stance on homosexual or homoromantic conduct or believe it to be hypocritical or unreasonable.

Although this does beg a question, assuming it was only a hug and kiss on the cheek: would I be able to give a friend a hug and a kiss on the cheek, with no romantic meaning, without being kicked off of church grounds, just because it might appear to be a homosexual act? Somehow, methinks the hug and kiss was more than an affectionate squeeze and quick cheek-peck to elicit the response it did, but who knows? I wasn't there. Meh, I'll wonder about it the next time I feel inclined to give a friend a non-romantic kiss on the cheek on temple square.


Note: In protest of the church security team's decision to dismiss the men from the premises and detaining them when they refused, a "Kiss-In" has even been organized for tomorrow (Sunday) morning. Judging from the Facebook confirmed attendees thus far, it may be a very small showing, but I'm intrigued enough to consider maybe jetting up there with my camera to capture the moment. Hm...I think I'm becoming a wannabe photographic journalist (and no, not just for gay stuff, though that's all I post here on this blog about all things moho).

Just When You Thought Blackface Was Out of Style

Some of you may have heard that the Oquirrh Mountain temple in South Jordan, Utah, which is currently open for public viewing, was struck by lightning, blackening the face and arm of the Moroni statue atop the spire. Some bloggers and commenters have proclaimed this to be a warning to the church as it fights equality and civil rights, an ironic reminder of days past when the church was behind the curve. But I heard the temple was defiled the night before by a gay couple who kissed in it while touring the open house, and this was surely a warning that the Lord frowns upon efforts to make same-sex marriage legal. ...OK, I made that up, but theories abound, don't they? I've compiled some of my favorite comments from visitors to a couple of news articles about this (fairly common) event.

Comments from people on Deseret News:
- Angel Moroni protected the temple.
- It's a reminder to be in the temple to find shelter from the storms of the world.
- Random act of nature, and temples get struck all the time
- It's a sign we should all be sacrificing vanity for the sake of the good work
- This wasn't an act of God, it was an act of Mother Nature, whom God has to obey just like we are commanded to obey our parents
- It's a repeat of when the architect of the St. George temple designed the steeple to his, not Brother Brigham's, designs, and the steeple burned up. [implication: someone surely has disobeyed God's prophet, or the discoloration would not have occurred]
- The church should give the good angel a 2 iron. Like they say, even god can't hit a 2 iron.
- God divided the seas didn't he? and now he has decided to put out a warning to his rebellious children who are swollen with pride.
- Spare the rod and spoil the Moroni
- Maybe Jesus thinks it's time for a "Christian" church to acknowledge Him over Moroni.
- As a member of the Church living in England can I say thank you for the best laugh I have had in a while. You ALL take things way too serious (I think that's how you'd put it in the good old US of A). Love to you ALL x x


Comments from the Tribune:
- God is angry about this temple. This is a warning.
- God prefers a Black man to blow a trumpet. He made the change.
- The "highest person" in the Church is a Black man. At least for now.
- The angel will be now be referred to as "The Angel Louie"
- Mormons in the area around the Temple reported a beautiful sound coming from the statue. "It had good rhythm and you could dance to it."
- That's just how Jesus high-fives his homeboy Moroni.
- Is it just me or does that statue look like a majorette in a gay pride parade?


...oh, that was fun.

No Gay Armageddon

So I went to yesterday's rally in Salt Lake. It was looking pretty sparse around 6:20 pm, when I arrived, but by the time it actually began, around 6:35 or so, there was a decent-sized crowd, only a small handful of whom I knew or recognized. I may be fairly familiar with gay mormon circles, but I've barely scratched the surface of the Utah gay community as a whole. So many homos here...

I saw some angry-looking, outraged faces, but I saw more smiling, hopeful faces. The overall tone was low-key and persistent but not militant. I enjoyed the signs of all sorts, some clever, some eye-rolling. People of many ages, ethnicities, and orientations joined in, many of them family and friends ("straight allies"). The rally began with the national anthem. The speeches consisted of personal stories, religious perspective, and pleas for tolerance and legal rights. Most were even-tempered and low-key, somewhat passionate but respectful in tone. A speaker or two sounded on the verge of emotionally losing control, but they reined it in.

I did have one main beef: I am always particularly bothered by whiny-toned speakers who proclaim that society is denying them the love they desire and refusing to allow them to be in committed relationships. I call bullcrap. That's a cheap emotional appeal, and I wish people would stop trying to use it. You can love whomever you damned well please, and you can have a committed relationship with or without a piece of paper or financial rights or religious recognition. Fortunately, most speakers steered clear of such specious rhetoric and a couple of them even declared that the gay community needed to not just be victims but to live what they believed and fight for their rights. One guy even clarified his use of "fight" to mean "educate", which I appreciated. The rally even included some unintended comedy, such as the sheepish bride getting pictures taken up on the capitol steps or the sprinklers turning on onto the crowd, with someone shouting as they huddled tighter to avoid the spray, "You can't stop us that easily, Chris Buttars!"

Only the last speaker was at all loud or a bit militant. Boy did he rile the audience up for the march down State street. He asked if there were any returned missionaries in the audience. Of course, many hands went up, along with a loud cheer. He called the audience on a new mission to change the world, to gain civil rights for all people...and the audience responded with uproarious applause. It was at once a touch offensive, somewhat stirring, and mildly absurd. But that's often how rallies go, in my experience, no matter what they're for.

I'm glad I went. Even though I don't fully align with the "activist agenda", and especially not with many of the tactics or arguments, I do support full equality for civil rights, and I am intrigued and fascinated by this political struggle and interested to see how it pans out in the long run. What will it look like 15 years from now when we look back? Overall, it was good to be there and not just hear about it in the news...wait...did it even make the news? Or was that obnoxious KSL helicopter circling around for some other reason?

For those who are interested or who want a small taste of what it was like to be there, I took (lots of) pictures of the rally, and I even recorded the first part of it on audio.

P.S. -- D-Train, somehow I came away from the rally still single. Go fig. ;-)

No Serious Person...

As much as religious people most often show a fundamental lack of understanding of where their gay counterparts are coming from, people often show a fundamental lack of understanding of religious people's views regarding their own sacred institutions and the role of sexuality, as evidenced on page 3 (online) of a recent Newsweek article:

"If we are all God's children, made in his likeness and image, then to deny access to any sacrament based on sexuality is exactly the same thing as denying it based on skin color—and no serious (or even semiserious) person would argue that."

Really? You sure about that?

I could write so much more on this. Another time. I don't have the energy or desire right now.

Gay SLC Couple Kidnapped Children?

First, a couple of thoughts as preface:

A) I'm not sure how I feel about categorizing certain criminal acts as "hate crime". Isn't a crime just a crime? Should it matter, in the eyes of the law, whether it was committed because the victim was a random target or a member of a hated group? I'm not sure...but maybe that's another conversation for another time.

B) I don't think every crime committed against a member of a protected minority group is a "hate crime". Most often, it's just personal. Or it's random. Playing the victim card excessively amounts to crying wolf.

That said, I'm troubled by this story about a gay couple who were beaten by their neighbors after allegedly kidnapping the neighbors' kids. Please at least skim it before continuing, if you haven't already seen it.

The news account, when combined with a very unflattering picture of the victim/suspect in which he looks like what most people think of when hearing the phrase "child molester", paints a rather unsympathetic picture of the gay couple who are the victims of this violence. It's easy to read this story and think, "DUH! You kidnap kids, you get the tar beaten out of you. Don't expect to come crying to anyone or spouting this hate crime victim crap."

I mean, look at the story: a nice family was having a party, when their neighbor sneaked over to their house and took their two children into his home without telling their parents. After the mother of one of the kids came to rescue them and took them home, relatives went over to the neighbor's house and beat him and his partner (claiming not to have known the kids were already back with their families).

As I read it, I thought, "Wait, this doesn't sound like the story I heard from a friend who knows this gay couple's circle of friends. If what I heard is just hearsay, and what's in the story are the facts, then I must admit this does change the story a bit."

Yet there are a few things that I find really disconcerting about this case:

A) IF the assailants didn't know the kids were with their family when they went over to beat the crap out of them, I can only come up with a few possible reasons for that:
1 - They were drunk out of their minds, and reason was not in the picture.
2 - They didn't give the victim even a chance to explain that he didn't have the kids anymore.
3 - They are all deaf and blind.
4 - It's true they didn't know the kids were home when they WENT over, but once they were there, they learned the kids weren't there, and they proceeded to beat the crap out of the victims anyway.

B) Why wasn't the alleged intoxication of the assailants brought into this news story?

C) Lesson hopefully learned: taking someone's kids into your home without parental permission is STUPID. REALLY, REALLY STUPID. Extremely, terribly bad judgment. Speaking objectively. Of course, when you read (and hear from friends) that the children looked distressed and were unable to sleep and very willingly and freely accepted an offer for a comfortable place to rest while their family was having (by all the hearsay I've heard) a noisy, drunken party, perhaps it was bad judgment but nothing nefarious. Maybe? Possible? And aren't we talking about neighbors, here, not strangers down the street? I realize we Americans aren't big on knowing our neighbors, but it's still different from some random passer-by ushering them into their car to take them home.

D) The story makes it sound like it's just settled and properly assumed that the guy did "kidnap" the kids. Granted, it looks really bad IF you don't trust the guy. But if you consider the possibility that his alternative was to tell their drunken, obnoxious relatives to grow up and take care of their own kids and possibly get the kids in trouble for making their parents look bad, maybe it doesn't seem as bad? A friend told me about this incident long before I heard it in the news. He's connected to the circle of friends who assert the victim is a kind man who would certainly not have questionable motives with the children. And the comments on this article show a lot of other voices coming to the defense of the victims. Where are the defenses of the family who committed the violent crime?

F) Not enough evidence to prosecute the assailants? What is there not enough evidence for? The news story says the assailants said they didn't know the kids weren't there when they went over there. Doesn't that pretty explicitly state they admit they did this? So they clearly committed the beatings. Is what makes it ineligible for prosecution the fact that this man took the kids without their parents' permission? And if this had been a 75-year-old man or a 35-year-old woman who took the kids in, would the situation be different? I'm inclined to think the lack of prosecution isn't about law but is mostly about preconceived notions, assumptions, and quite possibly terrible prejudice, not just because he's gay but because he's a male and he's not old and wrinkled.

G) I've also heard that this kind of retribution is pretty much indicative of Polynesian culture (in case you missed it in the news story--they don't mention it--the people who beat the guys up are Polynesian): you mess with the family, you pay the price. That's how disputes are settled in some cultures. So I can appreciate that this may very well have happened regardless of the couple's sexual orientation. Except that they probably wouldn't have beaten a man's wife and automatically assumed she was part of it, though you could possibly chalk that up to gender more than to orientation. But some accounts (keep in mind the accounts are probably from friends of the victims) say they yelled about beating up the faggots, not about beating up the child molesters or the kidnappers or the dirtbags.


So I'm bothered by this story. It may very well be that the victim is a pervert or otherwise untrustworthy man who had impure intentions in bringing the children to his house. It may be that there's a long history of tension between these neighbors, and this man has been pushing their buttons in numerous ways for years, and he finally broke the camel's back when he involved their children. Maybe. But I'm suspicious of the way this story was written and whether the police are handling it honestly. Why are we definitely pursuing charges regarding the alleged "kidnapping" in which no apparent harm was done but definitely not pursuing charges regarding the brutal beating? Is this one of those examples of useless, trashy "good ol' boy" culture in which the cop looks at the beaten child molester, shrugs, and says, "Hell, I woulda done the same thing," and that's somehow respected by the judgmental masses as the kind of justice we need more of? I'm not saying that's what it is. As I said, if the news story is more accurate than the story being circulated (unopposed, as far as I can tell) by friends of the victims, then all is probably as it should be. But unfortunately, it's hard for me to fully trust it is so.