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]

Not just about 'marriage'

I often hear church members say they support civil unions and giving same-sex couples the same rights as mixed-sex couples (many stop short of adoption rights), just not allowing same-sex couples to use the word 'marriage', and some even say the church has said as much.

It hasn't.

It has come out in support of certain rights for same-sex couples:

The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference. - The Divine Institution of Marriage

That's great, but it comes with the "so long as" qualifier (part of which [infringement of constitutional rights of churches and adherents] is totally understandable and probably necessary, the other part of which [infringing on the 'integrity of the family'] is completely subjective and allows for plenty of wiggle room should the church need it) and says nothing of civil unions, adoption rights, taxation, insurance, guardianship...

It has also clearly and officially implied it does not support giving same-sex couples all of the same rights and responsibilities as mixed-sex couples:

Legalizing same-sex marriage will affect a wide spectrum of government activities and policies. Once a state government declares that same-sex unions are a civil right, those governments almost certainly will enforce a wide variety of other policies intended to ensure that there is no discrimination against same-sex couples. This may well place "church and state on a collision course." - The Divine Institution of Marriage (emphasis added)

Classic "us or them". Of course, they expound on other reasons to bolster their opposition to same-sex marriage, reasons I believe are completely debatable if not debunkable. But my point here is that, to the church, this apparently isn't just about the word 'marriage', folks. So at the risk of spurring some of you to change your minds in a direction I disagree with, I say to my LDS-faithful friends and family: be careful about where you draw your lines, or you may find yourself unexpectedly at odds with 'the brethren' in your attempts to be 'tolerant'.

Less than but equal?

It began with the question from my brother: "So I gotta ask you something I've never understood. If same-sex couples can have all of the same rights and legal privileges in civil unions as heterosexual marriages have, as has been done in California, why make so much noise about the word marriage, and change the meaning of something most of society believes means something else by definition? It seems like a grab at power or affirmation." Something like that. I groaned inside at the prospect of another of "these" conversations, but I was interested to get to the root of some of his views while explaining and refining mine and hopefully helping him see where 'the other side' is coming from as requested.

There were the usual elements of such a conversation, discussion about what the word means, religion's role in the definition, militant gay activism, the church's role in Prop 8, the role of prophets (from an LDS perspective), obedience, greater good, evidence for same-sex marriage being a positive change and whether existing evidence is valid or sufficient enough to make such a leap.

We fundamentally disagree on several fronts, such as religious beliefs, how to effect change in society, the value of social 'stability' weighed against the role of government or equality, the threat same-sex marriage actually poses to social stability, and probably along with that, where the best balance between progress and stability is found: I think in my mind he's the frustratingly "if it ain't broke don't fix it" type who tends to sacrifice progress to formulaic oversimplification, and I suspect in his mind I'm the organizationally naive type who overestimates society's capacity to adapt and self-correct and sacrifices proven stability to abstract analysis.

But what it came back to, after two hours of discussion, was two fundamental points:

1. This is, at its root, related to what the word 'marriage' means to society in general, or to the majority of individuals in society, especially in religious connotation.
2. Both sides are motivated primarily or exclusively by emotion or 'belief', and both are equally as outrageous and/or guilty as the other in each other's eyes.

It also helped hit something home a bit more thoroughly to me: if I find a great guy to spend my life with, and we form a union of whatever kind we're allowed, and we raise children (assuming I can ever afford adoption or surrogacy...let alone become more comfortable with the idea of surrogacy) our relationship will be inherently "less" than my brother's marriage in his eyes. This would not mean he would think any less of us as individuals. It would be because he values his marriage so very much that a relationship which doesn't include everything his marriage (which I've always thought is excellent) includes, such as procreative ability and a supposedly more ideal parenting pair (with sexual dichotomy) is simply a different kind of relationship and deserves a different label. More than being different, though, it's missing pieces that he considers essential to the definition of 'marriage', the sacred institution and relationship to which he aspired and worked so hard to be worthy of. In his mind, you get married because you're going to unify as a man and woman in order to bring lives into this world and raise them together, and there is one relationship set apart for that purpose. No matter how well-intentioned two men or two women may be, they just can't make babies, and that means their purpose in unification is patently different.

In trying to really grasp where he's coming from, I had to set aside the fact that he doesn't regard sterile mixed-sex couples as having a relationship inferior to his or 'missing' anything, even if they know before marrying that they're sterile. I tried to set aside my belief that procreation is not somehow more selfless or noble a goal than adoption (a point on which most people would likely disagree based on the genders of the parents). I didn't argue that my goal in marrying a man would, I think, be to raise children together: to have a family. I set aside my disregard for institutional and social approbation (I was never much for ceremony and recognition, so having any approval but God's and my own was never very important to me). I set aside the reality that many straight couples think of marriage more as a love-commitment than a child-rearing union because in his mind, they, too, are missing the point of marriage, but they at least have the key elements should they figure it out.

I had to face the fact that even if my relationship with my male partner was the kind of relationship most mixed-sex couples only dream of as far as our communication, intimacy, and partnership, and we worked together to raise children wonderfully, our relationship would be patently inferior because it could never be naturally procreative (at least not with current scientific knowledge or human physiology), it would deprive our children of a true mommy, and it could never be sanctified by God in a temple. No matter how amazing our relationship is, or how trashy and flimsy many sanctified mixed-sex marriages are, our relationship would be "less than" (his words, spoken in kindness, meant to be descriptive, not demeaning) his marriage.

Look at it this way: all else being equal, most people can describe what a mixed-sex marriage has that a same-sex marriage doesn't (e.g. penis + vagina = natural reproductive capability, male role model for Timmy and female role model for Sally, suburban neighbors' heads don't explode when they bring a casserole or cookies to the new couple on the block), but find me people who can describe what a same-sex marriage has that a mixed-sex marriage doesn't...that was my "ah-ha" moment in understanding where he is coming from and why he's comfortable saying it's a patently different relationship with limitations, not imposed by anyone but inherent in the kind of pairing it is.

It's a relative, perhaps qualitative judgment not on me as a person but rather on the type of relationship, not even necessarily on the specific relationship itself. Though I think I'd struggle to really distinguish those, since my relationship would be sacred to me (I can't imagine spending my life with someone without it being sacred), I think I can handle it, having faced that realization ahead of time. I'm gonna have to handle it regardless. That's just the way it is, as he said, and if most people were as honest with me, they'd probably admit the same.

Even so, he said he could get on board with civil unions being granted all the rights of marriages, inherently different kinds of relationships by nature, one being "more" than the other by procreation, eternal nature, and maybe a few other factors, but with equal legal rights, privileges, protections, and responsibilities. I told him I can respect that perspective.

As for me, I don't much care what any institution "calls" my union but do care very much that my partner has rights of partnership and stewardship over our pooled resources, and I very much care about making a lifetime commitment to each other by whatever means effective and binding in our own minds and hearts. And I care very much that we make sure we citizens aren't cherry-picking civil rights based on religious beliefs hidden behind smoke-and-mirror rationales. I think government should handle civil contracts equally for same-sex and mixed-sex couples and leave religions to exercise religious rites as they believe. "Render unto Caesar..." Of course, I think you'd still have a battle over whether marriage was a religious institution first and foremost, and any push to remove the word "marriage" from law would be attacked by right-wingers as just another attempt to remove God from society (as if politicians didn't add specific mentions of God just decades ago to our coins, mottos, and pledges), blah, blah, blah. I'm pretty convinced that even if you gave "marriage" to religions and "civil unions" (of same-sex and mixed-sex couples) to government, you'd still have a raging debate about whether such recognition of same-sex unions would have dire consequences for society, for our children, for cute little puppies, etc. Maybe that's another post.

Ted Cox presentation on JIM and ex-gay movement

I've found this presentation by Ted Cox, a straight, ex-LDS writer who went to a JIM weekend undercover and shares his experience and interpretations, pretty interesting, although he does tend to fall into the tendency to dismiss ideas based on personal choices of certain of those who espouse and promulgate them, and he clearly has a bias. But so do the creators of JIM, so...y'know. One thing I find interesting is that I've found myself nodding at many points but saying, "Eh, now wait a minute, that's not entirely on-point," at others.

If you're uncomfortable with some crude language and humor, you might want to skip over the first 2 1/2 minutes. In fact, up until about 4:45 of part 1 is just intro stuff that's not necessarily relevant. There's incidental language throughout the rest, but nothing too in-your-face, from what I've seen in the first 6 parts so far. To get to the rest of the parts, either watch this until the end and follow the links in the video, or click on the video to bring up a YouTube page with some of them listed on the right.

A Fort Worth City Council member says, "It gets better"

Thanks to Sean for posting this powerful video. As I said before, assurances that they'll eventually leave their home and find friends who support homosexual relationships are of little comfort to an LDS kid who doesn't want to leave their belief system or live "sinfully" but who still wants to know someone understands. But this video is so personal, so seemingly sincere, and so relate-able in many ways to youth who want a more "conservative" lifestyle and who don't believe the lies about what being gay means that I think it's my favorite I've seen so far. OK, maybe it's my favorite because it's the one I most relate to.

And as Jey poignantly points out, a war on bullying, though one approach which probably needs to be taken, doesn't quite get at the root, which has more to do with the way the bullied youth are processing the persecution and derision they may face, and they may need more help with that than parents are equipped to offer. In attacking bullies, let's not forget to lift up the bullied until the bullies lose their power one strengthened, resilient heart at a time.

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:

No To Adoption

OK, so adoption can be a really emotionally charged issue, but it's important, so I think it's worth discussing. I have thought a lot about my feelings on adoption by "alternative" households and whether the best interest of the children is in mind or whether it's more about people getting what they want for their own happiness or sense of accomplishment and acceptability.

After all, in a way, when you're voluntarily bringing children into a household in which they are going to face social ridicule, socially atypical gender roles, or behavior and beliefs which most of society agrees is deviant and even unhealthy, how can adopting children be seen as anything but selfish?

Children raised in "alternative" homes often tell of persecution at school, emotional and psychological pressures far beyond what their peers must deal with, and isolation from their community for being part of a family they didn't choose to be with. There's a whole set of common problems unique to their situation.

Many of these children grow up to live differently from their parents, but being raised in a household so outside social norms and standard behaviors leaves them ill-prepared for life within their community or with someone of the opposite sex who grew up in a more socially stable, normal environment.

The most loving and selfless policy is to make sure children up for adoption find homes headed by parents who do not bring these inherent stressors and deviations into their lives. Adopted children are already in a volatile enough position, coming from orphanages and foster homes, so there's no sense in adding complications to their already sensitive lives. They're better off living as most of society lives to give them the best chance at success.

We shouldn't be making decisions affecting the welfare of the nation's children based on the shrill cries of activists who seek validation and selfishly want to fulfill their fantasies about raising children in their deviant homes. Besides, they chose to live the way they're living and could've chosen to live differently if they wanted children. Therefore, I've come to the conclusion, based on concern for the children and logical analysis, that adoption should not be allowed for the Amish.

Speaking of piecing together statistics from where I want them, studies have shown major depressive episodes to be far more prevalent among people from the south, and substance abuse much higher among certain Native American populations, so those populations should probably be barred from adoption as well. Oh, and far more 26-49-year-olds are treated for depression and substance abuse than other age demographics, so adoption should probably be limited to people under 26 and over 49. Shoot, suicide rates jumped 20% from 1999 to 2004 among people aged 45 to 54, which is a disconcerting trend, so we should put them on hold too, until they stop offing themselves. Some studies in the past have shown domestic violence to be higher among African American populations, so black people shouldn't be allowed to adopt and bring children into such a violent environment. Speaking of which, interracial couples should be barred from adoption because the social troubles inherent to such a home would be overwhelming in many areas of the country. And Mormons may carry a facade of mainstream family values but are really cult members who lead their children away from the true Christ and his grace into a path which leads to eternal damnation by the arrogance of their doctrine, so it would be better for the children if they were placed in Christian homes where they'll be brought up with values and truth. As for a southern black/white Mormon couple in their late twenties, well they should be required to have their tubes tied.

Shoot, I say leave the kids in the orphanages where they won't be messed up by selfish people bringing them into misled, sinful, stressful, abnormal homes of people who belong to demographics with high-risk statistics for mental disorders and substance abuse. Think of the children.

I Want to See a Study...

...in which heterosexual men are taught that their attraction to women is a deep-seated need for acceptance and bonding from women which has become sexualized, and they're instructed to seek healthy bonding with women in completely non-sexual ways and carefully control their sexual thoughts while trying to focus on men and see men's sexual attractiveness and just try dating men as they feel ready, try expressing physical affection or even kissing these men as they become more comfortable with the idea...

...of the actual average length of same-sex relationships vs. non-marriage mixed-sex relationships, along with what proportion of each were strictly monogamous, emotionally monogamous but sexually open (possible? That's a whole other post), or both emotionally and sexually open (non-monogamous but labeled as "committed").

...of how many people who support gay marriage also support another significant alternative marriage arrangement: plural marriage. How many who politically support gay marriage oppose plural marriage, and what is their reasoning behind their views?

...on correlation between big spoon preference and traditionally "masculine" identity.



Note: you know how I mentioned I have a crapload of posts waiting to be published? Yeah, this is one from 27 May 2009. I think I'll start going back and popping some of these out here and there for the heck of it, whenever it tickles my fancy.

Slavery This, Civil Rights That, Blah Blah Blah

Something seems familiar about the Senate majority leader's newest scandalous remarks. I just hope any of my LDS, GOP friends out there who are expressing their distaste for Senator Harry Reid's recent comparison of resistance to hasty change in health care with resistance to hasty change in other historical efforts, such as abolition, also expressed distaste for Elder Dallin H. Oaks' comparison of the attempted silencing of same-sex marriage opponents to the attempted silencing of Civil Rights Movement supporters.

Church Supports Nondiscrimination: What's the Big Deal?

My mummy dearest sent an e-mail to some family regarding the Church's recent statement regarding an nondiscrimination measure passed in Salt Lake. A relative, who, incidentally, isn't LDS, said she thought that seemed like common sense and wondered what all the hubbub was about.

I responded with the following e-mail:

What's huge about this statement is that many members of the church wouldn't dare say they support anti-discrimination laws because they either believe them to be unfair in protecting a group of sinners or because their church has been silent on the issue except for one statement during the Prop 8 campaign saying the church "doesn't oppose" certain rights for gay people. I think many LDS people just shrugged at that or never heard about it because "not opposing" really just means "not actively fighting"; it doesn't mean supporting. Now they've come out in support of certain anti-discrimination laws, which is great.

I know a lot of LDS people who will, only now that the church has said this, feel comfortable vocalizing their support for equal protections under the law in areas like housing and employment. Would've been nice if more members even considered that during gay marriage wars. Would've been nice if the church had come out with this statement during the Prop 8 battle to temper some of the rhetoric its members were throwing around, but that might've compromised the passion behind passing the proposition. It's hard not to view this as political timing or too little too late, but I think it's a much-needed clarification for so many of the members who are afraid to voice such support until the institutional church does it, so I try not to be too cynical about the timing, and I'm thankful to the church administration for doing it.

...you didn't think I'd have a one-line response for this, did you? :-)

She responded:

Thank you [O-Mo]. You are right and I am very glad the Mormon Church has come out in support of anti-discrimination laws. Let's hope more churches do. I was being short-sighted not to realize the positive impact of this. It just seemed to me to be the right thing so what was the big deal. The big deal is that this is not the norm for many "Christians" and it should be.

FYI, examples of how the Church is taking flack from extreme social conservatives (such as the writers on a site purportedly spreading the "truth" about homosexuality):
Mormon Church Decision to Embrace Homosexual Laws Could Presage a Split in the Pro-Family Movement

Sutherland Institute Calls LDS Support of Salt Lake City Gay Ordinance Problematic

Gary Glenn Responds to Regrettable Mormon Church Decision to Back ‘Gay Rights’ Laws - in part, he implies the LDS Church isn't operating on principle but naively ignoring that some courts have used antidiscrimination laws to push same-sex marriage. Actually, it is the operation of principles rather than blind dogma which demands the tougher road with greater complexity and concessions to reason. Only a jackass thinks it's his way or the highway in all things. I firmly believe in a principled approach to life and politics, but what this man described is not principled in my estimation, it's idiotic.

These are people who are apparently unable to distinguish the parts from the whole of a movement, concept, or philosophy or to understand that every good thing can be misused, but that doesn't make the thing itself bad. They live in a childlike reality without subtlety or clarity. They believe experience determines reality. It's juvenile and intellectually pathetic, and I see it rampantly on both sides of this and other issues. But that discussion is for another time, as is my diplomacy, apparently.



Now that my flight is about to board, and my "bored" time at the airport is about over, I'm going back to vacation mode. :-)

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.

Missing The Same-Sex Marriage Mark (As I See It)

PREACHING TO THE CHOIRS

The same-sex marriage debate continues to floor me in its smoke and mirrors, its straw men, its red herrings. Both sides seem so completely fixated on their perspectives that the debate generally goes nowhere but is focusing on emotional appeals from both sides and only preaches to the respective choirs.



BULLCRAP

Couples are being limited in how they can love and told they're worthless by being denied? Bullcrap.
Moral majority setting rules is what democracy is all about, and if you don't like it, get out? Bullcrap (time marker 7:45).

I call bullcrap all around. We can go back and forth forever. Same-sex marriage proponents seem to believe this is the great civil rights battle of our generation. Same-sex marriage opponents seem to believe this is the great moral battle of our generation.



THE CRUX (AS I SEE IT)

Same-sex marriage proponents declare selective limitation of the right to marry to be an unconstitutional practice and an egregious civil rights violation, not to mention a sign of bigotry and tyranny in our society.

Same-sex marriage opponents declare opening marriage to all consenting adults to be a detriment to the foundation of healthy society and a forced redefinition and breakdown of a time-honored institution for the sake of social validation, not to mention it not being a civil rights issue.

"Wait...what? Not a civil rights issue? How can they say that? Of course it's a civil rights issue." "No, it's not a civil rights issue, it's a moral issue." Here, in the definition of marriage and whether it is, indeed, a civil rights issue (which is debatable depending on your definition of marriage, as is the question of whether marriage is a natural right), is where I think the problem is. If we have two fundamentally disparate definitions of what marriage is, the rest of the debate is mostly useless and superfluous.



WHAT IS "MARRIAGE"?

As I see it, to someone who believes the very word "marriage" is inextricably tied to a usually or ideally religious union of a man and a woman, generally for the purpose of raising a stable family, no matter how much that union has been abused over the years, "marriage" is not merely a civil contract but a moral, religious institution, and a heterosexual one by definition. In that sense, all people have equal access to the union called "marriage" because any gay man is welcome to marry a woman, and any gay woman is welcome to marry a man, if they so choose, as some do. If some feel they couldn't be happy in such a relationship, they are also free to choose not to marry or to enter into another kind of relationship. And from that perspective, marriage is, by its very nature, an institution which is unchangeable and fixed except perhaps by edict directly from God, so even if the word "marriage" is bastardized to include couples for whom it was never intended, it won't be authentic marriage but the government co-opting a religious institution which was never intended to be up for public revision.

As I see it, someone who believes "marriage" is a union by contract of two people who want to bring their resources and lives into one as recognized by society under the law naturally believes that to limit access to such a contract depending on sexual orientation and based on religious belief not only is fundamentally anti-American and a clear violation of civil rights but the terrible tyranny of religious beliefs mixing with government to marginalize those who don't fit an ideological mold. For some of them, their church would "marry" them if their church were allowed to, and they want the government to get out of controlling whom their church chooses to marry. Being "allowed" all the same rights under a civil union, or having a "commitment ceremony", may be nice, but feelings of degradation aside, it's just wrong to deny rights to people based on sexual orientation, and they see "marriage" as such a right.



EMOTIONAL POLITICS

Unfortunately, I'm afraid most people haven't even thought their own stance through to nearly that extent but have responded to emotional arguments. There are so many emotional appeals out there on both sides, and they're mostly irrelevant and specious. People who repeat them sound annoying and foolish after a while as they ring the same tinny bell.

• We're not allowed to love who we want to. What's wrong with love?
• Society will mock our traditional beliefs if gay marriage is allowed.

To me, the most galling examples of this were two ads during the Prop 8 campaign. The first, made by the organization sponsored by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, featured a young man saying if Prop 8 didn't pass, people upholding traditional beliefs would be subjected to social ridicule. I've rarely been so angry at a political statement, and if it's not obvious to you why that's such an offensive thing to say, it's probably not worth putting energy into convincing you. The second was an ad which targeted the church in a completely ridiculous and senselessly inflammatory way, a portrayal so absurd and so reflective of a lack of understanding that it's almost not worth mentioning.



THE (IR)RELEVANCE OF MOTIVES

Emotional appeals aside, there are also arguments for or against based on the motivations for supporting/opposing same-sex marriage.

I've heard from many people, including some gay rights supporters, that the gay marriage debate is not about the right to marry in and of itself but is about social validation and ending bigotry by changing cultural perception through legislation. I don't think any reasonable person would deny that there are activists who are trying to use same-sex marriage as a wedge to gain social acceptance at any social cost (though they may not believe the costs are or would be negative or grave, as many opponents do), but to say that the majority of same-sex marriage supporters are just seeking validation and forcing tolerance and not actually interested in preserving freedom and rights for all is diminutive.

I've also heard from many people, including some religious opponents of same-sex marriage, that opponents are only enforcing their morality on society and that they don't really care whether "equality" is obtained because gay relationships are inferior and unworthy of social recognition. I don't think any reasonable person would deny that there are religious conservatives who don't care whether this is a civil rights issue at all because the social good is what they're after, not equality (though they may believe, as I mentioned, that all have access to marry...someone of the opposite sex), but to claim that all opponents of same-sex marriage are bigots and homophobes and not actually interested in preserving the institution of marriage is diminutive.

Such accusations are, aside from being inflammatory and dismissive, almost entirely irrelevant because if something is right (legally speaking), it's right no matter why some people are pushing it, and if something is wrong, it's wrong no matter why some people are pushing it. If you try to tell me gay marriage should be illegal because gay people don't really want marriage because they don't stay together longer than two years anyway, and if you try to tell me gay marriage should be legal because those who oppose it are bigots, you've made no argument whatsoever. Seriously. You've just told me you're willing to deny rights or change the law based on someone else's motives, not on legal merits.

Where motives do become relevant, in the political arena, is in perceiving where a power grab is masked in championing a good cause. The greatest political players know that to accomplish anything, you have to hide behind heroism and strong ideology. So it's wise to question motives, and it's wiser still to prepare to respond to those and to negate them through negotiation or proposing alternative actions, but it still doesn't change whether something should happen on its own merits. It just means you have to be aware and wise about how legislation is worded and implemented, no matter which side you're on.

For example, most of us agree health care should be reformed, but we're cautious about what will sneak its way in with the reform, so we understandably have taken our time in figuring out what to do. We don't trust each other. We probably shouldn't. But that doesn't mean certain changes shouldn't be made, so we try to move ahead and negotiate and make sure nobody's going to use a good thing to completely overturn our country's foundation, like conservative worry about Obama's proposed health care reform pushing us towards socialism. But...then again, we don't see much open dialog there, either, mostly just all-or-nothing debate. Politics as usual.



ERA ALL OVER?

Speaking of politics as usual, I've heard talk, in relation to the church's involvement with Prop 8, of the church's successful opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment, a position which the church clarifies on its web site as not being against equality for women but against the implications of its wording and the lack of necessity based on other avenues of procuring "equality" while "allowing for natural differences". Today, you'll provoke the ire of many if you voice a belief in inequality of women and men, yet the Equal Rights Amendment is still not part of the U.S. Constitution. Things seem to have worked out fine with women achieving equal status but without the potential mess of the ERA's apparently sloppy or vague wording.

Or, if you flip it around, is it possible that Prop 8 was a sort of counterpart to the ERA: a quick blanket fix without regard to a more gradual, nuanced approach of achieving equality and protecting the rights of religions from government control by instead hastily changing a constitution to achieve the desired effect?



RENDER UNTO CAESAR...

And if we're going to change the constitution anyway, I propose a different change than those attempted thus far: take marriage out. I say if marriage is a religious institution, invented by and managed by "the church", then give it back to the churches, get the state out, and let the government govern the legal rights and obligations of "civil" unions, which would be required completely independent of marriage.

But aside from being very skeptical about our ability to change something that's been such a part of our history from the beginning (I can only imagine the outraged backlash from ultraconservatives, but let them fume), I think the battle would then move to civil unions and the ramifications of legalizing them and placing them on equal footing as heterosexual civil unions. Would adoption agencies not still have the same issues? Would schools not have the same ability to teach homosexuality? ...if those were ever valid arguments, won't they still apply with civil unions? Won't we still have a civil rights debate on our hands...?



THE UNEDUCATED HAVEN'T EARNED A RIGHT TO VOTE

I've heard it argued many times that gay people don't stay together anyway, and when they do, they have open relationships, so why do they even need marriage? It's a "farce", some say, to take gay people at face value when they say they want the right to marry because all they really want is social validation since they obviously don't know the first thing about real commitment. It's ridiculous that they even presume to be capable of marriage, others say (an idea possibly rooted in the belief that homosexuality is a symptom of emotional deficits, sexual disorder, gender role issues, men not being "wired" for monogamy and needing women to tie them down, or some such thing).

Besides, why should the majority of society bow to their whim in wanting marriage by changing the definition that has always existed and been the foundation of functioning society throughout all of recorded history, just so they can "feel" validated, especially when they can have all the same rights through civil unions and other legislation anyway?

To those who view marriage as an inherently male-female institution, this does make sense. To those who view marriage in a different way, somewhat like land ownership or the right to vote, it seems more like a copout reason to withhold rights. Once upon a time, there was no precedent for women to vote, and that was supposedly as it should be because it maintained well-working social structure and roles. Some see marriage as similarly denied based on archaic social constructs. Of course, the comparison runs into problems when sexual orientation is not seen as an innate characteristic, such as gender or ethnicity.

And of course, there may be some who don't care whether marriage is a civil right anyway because the social good overrides civil rights. Perhaps those same people are consistent in their views, such as believing uneducated people shouldn't have a right to vote because they haven't earned that responsibility, and we should therefore identify subsets of society in which lack of education is rampant and remove their right to vote. That argument certainly has been made in the past. But then, the definition of "vote" is pretty clear, so we have the added problem of debating what "marriage" means, whether a religious institution or a civil contract.



MY POINT
...though it may only make sense to me...

My point is that, as I see it, whether traditionalists will be socially ridiculed, and whether gay people are capable of lifelong fidelity, and whether schools will teach gender-neutral sexuality, and whether society "validates" homosexuality, and whether "love" is being denied people, and whether being allowed only civil unions makes people feel "second class" are all specious arguments. They are mostly valid concerns which should be addressed, but they do not make legal arguments as to whether "marriage" should include couples of the same sex. They're all distractions from the real discussion: what marriage is and whether it is a civil right. Everything else, like what ramifications it might have to open it or close it to same sex couples, is secondary and can probably be worked out in the long run.

It seems to me that if marriage is exclusively defined as a religiously ordained institution which is inherently heterosexual by nature, then we already have marriage equality, and any changes really are not issues of civil rights but of simple majority rule deciding whether to "change" the definition of marriage, and all talk of "civil rights" should cease as irrelevant. Perhaps then it'd be time to turn to gaining other rights that, to me, seem more important: employment and housing non-discrimination, domestic partnership rights for financial and medical protection and stewardship, etc. Here I'll admit I think of "marriage" as used in legal framework documents as inherently non-denominational, therefore subject to interpretation, and referring, in law, to civil contract by virtue of separation of church and state, but I also admit I have no formal education to support that view. That being the case, it seems to me that if this definition of marriage is adopted, government should divorce itself from the term "marriage", but we all know that's not likely to happen any time soon.

But if marriage is a civil right, then it seems to me we should grant it to all equally and pass any laws to protect or guard against possible consequences of it, such as those enumerated by Prop 8 supporters. But perhaps I'm deluded and need to face the possibility that even "civil rights" can and should be denied if there is a greater social good to be preserved or established. But that's a pretty scary philosophy, if you ask me, even if it were legal: feeling justified in telling a group they can't have rights you have because you think it's better for the republic that they not.

And if "marriage" is a vague term not well defined and under dispute, then the nation (or the states) probably should define it in its (or their respective) constitutions to clarify its role. Admittedly, if that's the case, then that is quite possibly what happened in California: the majority of the population simply decided marriage meant "man and woman" and is not a "civil right" for any two consenting adults, while the side which lost believed marriage to be a contract and therefore a civil right but were outvoted in their definition of marriage. My problem is that, judging from the scare-tactic ads about homosexuality being taught in schools and churches being forced to perform gay marriages, I seriously doubt most voters ever even considered whether they were removing someone's civil rights, and I suspect many indeed thought they were blocking civil rights for a greater social good, and that bothers me a lot. See, I'm more concerned about why people voted the way they did, on both sides, than which way they voted.

As far as I can tell, whether it's a civil right (or what the definition of "marriage" is) is still being decided and will continue to be decided state-by-state and through court cases nationwide. In the meantime, can't we have more dialog about compromise?

Thou Shalt Not Change! ...Or Something.

WHAT THEY'RE SAYING

Well, here it is, folks. The APA has released conclusive, indisputable proof that you can't pray away the gay. I guess it's time to just go find myself a boyfriend and stop being all angsty now that the APA has come to the rescue. ...or is it?

There's more to this story than meets the eye, methinks. For a spin you might not have seen in most of the popular media, check out The Wall Street Journal's report, which emphasized the APA's acknowledgement that people should be supported in fostering their whole identity, including (not scrapping) their faith or belief system. You can also get the actual APA report straight from the horse's mouth if you're not keen on letting biased reporters filter it for you and have the energy to wade through over 100 pages.

You can even check out a response from Exodus. They seem...undeterred. Surprised? I hope not.

Addendum (16 Aug 2009): NARTH also released a study they say refutes many of the APA's claims over the years.

Despite the hard-line interpretation most people seem to take of the review as a final nail in the ex-gay coffin, and despite some whiff of political timing, I do see a concession in their comments which I appreciate, encouraging therapists to take into account a person's whole self, including beliefs about homosexual behavior, in helping them find healthy acceptance and decisions with how to deal with their own situation, rather than just telling them they're queer and should find a partner. Kudos on that front. I've always said, when people tell me to be true to myself, that I have a lot more than hormones to be true to, and I expect people to respect my choice to be true to myself, my whole self.

In relation to all of this, I'm going to ramble for a while. Follow along if you will:



EX-GAY SCHMEX-GAY?

Nonetheless, I do tend to shake my head and raise an eyebrow at organizations and individuals who hyper up into defense mode by shouting, "What do you mean people don't change?! Don't I exist? Am I invisible?! What do you mean it's harmful to use therapy to promote change? I've changed. Look at me. I've been married for years and made babies. Lots of them. And we practice just for fun." Good for you and your "tens of thousands" of cohorts (see the CNN report), but I don't see the evidence that such is the case for even a large minority of subjects who undergo therapy of homosexuality in that way.

Pardon my skepticism, but I have my doubts about actual "sexual orientation change" and tend to think of "change" more as a shift in thought processes and training the brain to think in less sexual and more relational terms, a change which I think is healthy but which I don't think is the "I'm hetero now" one-eighty ex-gay advocates' language tends to portray, even though they sometimes claim that's not what they mean. But alas, some people say they've changed from homo to hetero, and I'm in no place to call them liars, so I believe they've possibly changed as they say or believe they have, but I have some deep-seated skepticism based on my direct experiences with friends who have publicly claimed similarly but, over time, confess (intentionally or not) in private conversation that they aren't exactly hetero and explain what they really mean when they say they've "left homosexuality" or "changed their orientation". Who knows, right? I can't get into someone else's psyche enough to presume to know. Some of it may come down to semantics. I just know a lot more people who have tried it and were quite unchanged as far as attractions go (though often better at dealing with the emotions around it and controlling behavior and impulsive habits or thoughts), sometimes (not always) being quite discouraged as a result.



HAVE YOU REALLY TRIED?

Granted, you have to want change when it comes to any psychological re-programming or treatment of disorders, and you have to have solid motivation for wanting it, and you have to be willing to do what it takes. You also have to have the skills and tools to cope and process, which most often requires a really solid therapist/counselor and a solid support and accountability system. From my observations, relatively few people fit those criteria all together, which may account for much of the "failure" of treatment. I'll acknowledge that.



"IT COULD HAPPEN!"
(see this link, at :43, for the ultra-obnoxious, outdated reference)

I mean, I often defend the whole "change is possible for at least some" theory. Why reject it if people say they've experienced it? To satisfy some lustful need to make in genetic or biological? To justify demanding legal equality? To liberate myself from the expectations of friends and family that I might, someday, become straight and fulfill their dreams for me? I've considered the possibility of accepting "change", myself, if it were to come after years of emotional healing and growth and accountability and thought processing. The theory behind "reparative therapy" or "conversion therapy" or whatever you call the process of bringing homosexual thoughts, behaviors, and desires under control or even dissolving most (even all?) of them while possibly magnifying heterosexual inclinations is, I believe, more complex than most people give it credit for. And most people won't give it a fair hearing because the APA, for example, has said homosexuality is not a disorder or the result of any psychological problems, and that's the end of that discussion because to imply anything else is destructive and bigoted. Bah. Dogma.



YOU OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T TRY HARD ENOUGH

But whether or not homosexual inclinations or feelings change in any given individual, I try to sympathize with the emotional trauma and hopelessness of putting one's faith in a mentor or therapist who promises something that doesn't happen and then being told it was one's own fault for not committing to the process enough. And I have my own suspicions and skepticism of the motives of those who are crusaders on the "change" battlefront. They, like their opponents, are invested. They stand to lose not only credibility but money and clients if they somehow confess they have homosexual thoughts sometimes (nevermind what they do with those or how well they "control" them).



EX-GAY DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN NOT ATTRACTED TO MEN

For example, the NPR report references someone citing the numbers of those who change from "self-identifying" as homosexual as if that means they have changed their orientation. But I know several guys who have publicly renounced "homosexuality" and say they flatly reject identifying themselves as "gay" but who, when you have a private conversation with them or you observe their eyes in the gym, prove to be quite attracted to men in a more-than-straighties-are-attracted way and quite less interested in women sexually, even if they proclaim they want a relationship with a woman and are convinced that's where their happiness will be found. Identifying as gay has little to do with whether manflesh turns you on more than womanflesh.



WHAT HAPPENED TO LIVE AND LET LIVE?

My question to those who would denounce the entire ex-gay movement is this: what happened to "let me live my life as I choose"? Whether to identify as gay or whether to marry someone of the opposite sex is each person's decision to make, and as long as they're honest with their potential mates, let them choose how they want to live their lives and pursue the greatest happiness they know how. I hear cries from gay people everywhere for validation of their relationships against the moral judgement of others, and then they turn around and decry the morality or ethics of someone who chooses a "traditional" marriage and loudly proclaim such to be liars and self-deceived. It doesn't make sense to me.

Whether or not so-and-so ever looks at another member of the same sex with some "hubba hubba", or whether or not their spouse is the only member of the opposite sex that will ever turn them on, or whether or not they even have a sex life with their spouse, or whether they actually love and adore and enjoy physical intimacy with their spouse in a mutual and fulfilling way, or whether they really did shift from primarily homosexual to primary heterosexual attraction, it's their decision to make, both the "SGA" party and the straighty they're forming the relationship with.

Why does that threaten you as a gay man or woman, to have other gay men or women (who often prefer, for their own reasons, to refer to themselves as something less stigmatized) choosing alternative lifestyles? Sure it makes life harder for you when people say, "Well so-and-so married a woman, and they seem happy," but buck up and deal with it. You don't need anyone's validation to make your own choices.



BUT DO I HAVE THE ENERGY OR INTEREST TO LIVE THAT WAY?

I look around, and I personally know several who seem to be living traditional heternormative or "single" lives, many with opposite-sex partners and children or who are totally non-dating and single and truly working towards such future marriage and family. I respect these men and women and their sense of mission. I appreciate their drive to live true to their beliefs and principles. And by and large, they are respectful of the decisions of others, despite proclaiming that there are other options for those who want them, even if they regard some of those decisions as immoral or against God's will. My hesitation in wanting to follow in their footsteps is that they seem to have something in common: they seem, at least, to live and breathe the process. They may say homosexuality is incidental to their lives. They may say it's just one small part of who they are and doesn't define them. But they chair Evergreen committees, mentor others, hold seminars and speak on panels, attend and speak at conferences, write essays and books, manage web sites and discussion groups, hold firesides, attend experiential weekends over and over... I just wonder if I'd rather stay single and go about my other interests, if living a more heteronormative way comes with all of that.

But then again, I recognize that even if I'm not doing all of those things, the topic is going to be on my mind probably as much or more as it is for them. And I realize I am blogging about the topic all the time, so how can I think I'm really any different right now? At least they're framing their thoughts and focus on the issue in ways that help them live the way they want to. I have more thoughts developing on that but will save them for a later post.



OK, BACK TO THE POINT

What right does a therapist have to try to promote a person to adopt a gay-affirming perspective if the client has expressed belief against such? I do agree they should be very up front about the success rates, what "success" means, and the possibility that they can work through their questions and turmoil in the meantime, choosing a fulfilling life congruent with their most valued beliefs. I'm glad the APA is coming out in support of therapists backing off a bit and allowing their clients to determine who they want to be, helping them to process it all healthily even if they choose a sort of alternative-to-alternative "lifestyle". At least, I hope that's what they're doing.




Update: interesting analysis of the report from another blogger here.

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”

Delhi Decriminalization

In a ruling that applies apparently only to New Delhi, the Delhi High Court decriminalized consensual gay sex, apparently the first such move in India.

But now, The Advocate reports that a leading television yoga expert in India has filed a petition challenging that ruling, reasoning that homosexuality is a disease curable through yoga exercise and meditation.

I knew there was something suspicious about the apparent attraction of gay boys to yoga.

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).