A Callous Dumbing Down of Mixed-Orientation Marriage Issues

“I am so fed up, it's unbelievable. There is no simple solution. No single right answer. I have to answer to so many. A family who needs me, but I am dying emotionally, mentally, spiritually … Yet to leave my children, to cause pain to both them and wife - that is something that is not me, not something I would deliberately do, let alone choose to do. I would rather die. And so I am dying …”

~ Gay Mormon Man in a Mixed-Orientation Marriage

This is not a post about same-sex marriage. This is a post about Mormon mixed-orientation marriages. Specifically, this is a post about an op-ed piece that appeared in Sunday’s Deseret News that conflates mixed-orientation marriages with the issue of same-sex marriage by touting that mixed-orientation marriages are an alternative to “same-sex marriage.” 

In support of this proposition, the authors of the article – Michael and Jenet Jacob Anderson – do not point to extensive personal experience with or research of Mormon mixed-orientation marriages, nor to they point to statistical or academic studies. In point of fact, their piece is not only based on but liberally quotes from (without explicitly identifying the source, other than through an innocuous link) an amicus brief filed with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeal in the Kitchen case.

The fact that the Ericksons take such an extremely complicated, emotional issue, i.e., mixed-orientation marriage, and use it for political purposes is repulsive to me. I lived in a mixed-orientation marriage for over 20 years. I know many Mormon men who either are or have lived in a mixed-orientation marriage. I know a fair bit about mixed-orientation marriages, and in every case of which I am aware, there has been a tremendous amount of heartache; the circumstances of each marriage were unique to the couple involved; and the sexual orientation of one of the partners was only one factor that played into how the marriages evolved and, in some cases, ended.

The fact of the matter is that many, many gay Mormon men of my generation entered into marriages with women because that is what the Church taught they should do. Marriage to a woman would fix their problem. Living the Plan of Happiness would fix their problem. But it didn’t. What it did was, sooner or later, to one degree or another, create a tremendous amount of heartache.

The stories of these men and their spouses and children are largely unknown to the general LDS population (something I hope to help change). Stories such as those of Miguel, Allen, Kurt, Gary, Mark, Scott, Sarah, Sean, Kennedy, Steve, Shawn, Dan, Beck, Jeff, and many others. Because of this obscurity, the issues these families face and have faced are not appreciated by the larger Mormon community. 

This highlights yet another reason I took issue with the Erickson’s piece. They point to a few stories of couples on the Voices of Hope website who are making their mixed-orientation marriages work, imply that these are the people whose stories have been suppressed and then callously use them for their own rhetorical/political purposes by claiming that “their lives dispel the myth that same-sex marriage is the only path to being free, equal and happy.” What nonsense. I would have to think that the couples whose stories are featured in Erickson’s piece would themselves be mortified at the use to which their stories were put.

There is yet one more aspect of the Erickson piece that offends.

Many, many gay and lesbian Mormons, at some point in their journey, have been asked by (sometimes) well-meaning friends, family members and ward members, “Why can’t you be like _____?” The blank represents someone who has “successfully” addressed their same-sex attraction and is a faithful Mormon. These well-meaning (but often ignorant) people point to websites such as ldsvoicesofhope.org as proof of their point; but what they often don’t realize is how complex same-sex attraction is and how offensive their “advice” is.

The Ericksons, in their piece, took this practice to a whole new level when they in essence applied it not to just one individual but to the entire community of gay Mormon men and women, implying that – if they wanted to – they could be like the people in the Voices of Hope videos. What the Ericksons did was ignorant, but I don't think is was well-meaning. It was callous, self-serving and offensive.

There are other voices available on the web that tell different stories from those found on Voices of Hope. Kendall Wilcox has collected and posted a number of these stories on his Far Between movie website. Stories of gay and lesbian Mormons who have chosen to live their sexuality with loving partners can be found at Voices of Love. In addition, I plan to republish a number of the posts I wrote about mixed-orientation marriages when I first came out, starting with one that I published earlier this month entitled “A Situation That Defies Our Nature,” from which the opening quote (above) was taken. 

The issues pertaining to mixed-orientation marriages are extremely complicated. There needs to be more awareness and knowledge of these issues in the Mormon community. But they need to be talked about in a respectful and sensitive way, not used for callous political purposes.

Same-Gender Relationships: Editing Elder Callister

When I first sat down to write this post, I intended it to address three questions prompted by Elder Callister's article in this month's Ensign: 

First Question: Why was a talk given over a year ago to a limited audience (BYU-Idaho devotional) by a member of the presidency of the Seventy made a prominent article in a Church magazine that reaches members around the world?

Second Question: Why did the Ensign make several edits to the remarks Callister made at BYU-Idaho?

Third Question: Why are there so many conflicting signals coming out of Church headquarters about homosexuality? More specifically:

• why are general authorities making conflicting statements 
• why are some remarks given top billing in the Ensign 
• why is the Church resorting to websites to convey information about its position on homosexuality instead of using resources such as the Ensign, and 
• why has nothing been said in general conference about these issues? 

I decided to address the second question first, and it turns out that this is as far as I got in this post. I'm not sure if I'll tackle the first and third questions ...

Deciphering the Edits

Set out below is the actual text of Elder Callister’s article as printed in the Ensign. Words he spoke at BYU-Idaho but were omitted from the Ensign text are crossed through, whereas words added in the Ensign article are underlined.

Same-Gender Relationships 

This is engaging in intimate physical relationships with someone of the same gender. Some would have us believe that the Church’s stand against same­-gender physical relationships is a temporary policy and not an eternal doctrine. 

Such a belief would be at odds with the scriptures, with the words of modern prophets, and with the plan of salvation, all of which teach the necessity of eternal marriage between a man and a woman as a condition to exaltation. A same­gender relationship is inconsistent with God’s eternal pattern that husbands and wives not only have children in mortality but also have eternal increase in their exalted condition. 

Having said that, We recognize that everyone is a son or daughter of God and deserves to be treated as such. We all struggle with imperfections, some not of our choosing. But we also believe in an infinite Atonement that has the capacity in this life or the life to come to endow us with every power necessary to convert our weaknesses and imperfections into strengths. The Lord promised us, “For if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them” (Ether 12:27). 

If someone has same-gender tendencies then it is his or her duty to Those with same­gender tendencies have a duty to (1) abstain from immoral relationships just as a single heterosexual must do and (2) do all within their power to avail themselves of the refining, perfecting powers of the Atonement. In the interim, however, those who have same­gender tendencies but do not act on them are worthy to hold Church positions and receive a temple recommend.

I don’t want to play conspiracy theorist here, but it seems obvious that these edits were made for a reason.

Is any type of same-gender relationship immoral? 

Whereas in Elder Callister’s talk, he made it clear that he was referring to intimate same-gender physical relationships, this is less clear in the Ensign version. He also made it clear in the last paragraph that he was saying that homosexuals must abstain from the same type of behavior that is forbidden to single heterosexuals. The omission of this phrase (“just as a single heterosexual must do”) from the Ensign version would appear to be tied to the same reason that the opening phrase was omitted – the editors wanted to give the impression that ANY type of same-gender relationship is considered immoral, whereas Elder Callister referred only to intimate physical relationships.

This gets to the point of what the Church does and does not consider immoral with respect to same-sex relationships. Using Elder Callister's original standard, same-sex dating would be appropriate. Hand-holding would be appropriate. Kissing would be appropriate. Feelings of love would be appropriate. Only intimate physical activity would be inappropriate. The Church tells its gay and lesbian members that they must be "chaste," but what does that mean, exactly, in a same-sex context?

It is also interesting to note that Elder Callister did not label as “immoral” same-gender relationships that were not intimate physical relationships. He merely states that they are “at odds with” and “inconsistent with God’s eternal pattern.”

“Having said that …”

Why was this simple clause omitted? It seems to me that its original use provided context for what he was about to say and gave it meaning. In the Ensign version, this context is removed. Why? To me, the omission of this phrase in the Ensign conveys a slightly less tolerant tone to a discussion of same-gender relationships.

“His or Her”

Why this edit? Call me far-fetched, but it is a fact that almost all the Church’s involvement with the issue of homosexuality has always focused on gay men. To this day, there is very little discussion – anywhere in the Mormon community – about lesbians. It’s as if the subject is too taboo, too revolting (in the eyes of the male hierarchy) to the whole Mormon concept of Womanhood to be acknowledged – at least to the same degree that male homosexuality is acknowledged. This change to Elder Callister’s remarks seems to be reflective of this general approach.

Thoughts?