Birth Rates Hanging By a Thread

One of Utah’s primary arguments against marriage equality – believe it or not – is that same-sex marriage would imperil Utah’s birth rate and send it crashing from its current pinnacle to depths that imperial the continuation of the species in the Beehive State. “Utah,” the State argues, “has a strong and compelling interest not only in the quality of parenting its children receive, but also in the number of children who will be conceived in the future and raised in high-quality home arrangements.”

A Causal Non-Causal Link

As their opening salvo in this argument, the State’s attorneys attempt to establish a causal connection (even though they refer to it a correlation) between marriage equality and lower birth rates in states and countries that have legalized same-sex marriage:

“It is striking that fertility and birthrates tend to be markedly lower in nations and states that have embraced same-sex marriage. For example, the birthrate in states (and Washington, D.C.) that have adopted a genderless marriage definition is significantly lower than the national average. In fact, the six lowest birthrate states [comprising the New England states] have all adopted that redefinition  … The same is true overseas. As of 2011, ten countries permitted same-sex marriage. Six of these ten fall well into the bottom quarter in both birth rates and fertility among 223 countries and territories, and all ten fall below the average worldwide fertility rate.”

After citing these statistics, however, the State admits that “ …  [w]hile these statistics obviously do not prove a causal link between same-sex marriage and declining birthrates, they do create cause for concern.”

Utah’s Orwellian Interest in Procreation

After strongly implying that other states are not pulling their birth rate weight – especially those that have already legalized same-sex marriage – the State goes on to point out how successful it has been in procreating. “So far,” the attorneys for Utah argue, “Utah has been more successful than these states and countries in encouraging procreation.”

Utah’s lawyers then go on to explain to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals why Utah has been so successful:

“By providing special privileges and status to couples that are uniquely capable of producing offspring without biological assistance from third parties, the State sends a clear if subtle message to all of its citizens that natural reproduction is healthy, desirable and highly valued. That message fosters more reproduction …  Utah’s marriage laws and traditions subtly convey to all citizens that it is good to make the sacrifices necessary to have children—even though doing so may be inconvenient or even burdensome to adult parents … [T]he very institution of man-woman marriage stands as a State endorsement not only of the value of raising children in intact marriages, but also of the value of procreation.”

Hmmmm. Is it just me, or does this sound more like a General Conference talk by a leader in the LDS Church than a legal argument advanced by a sovereign state? Since when does a governmental entity tell its citizens that they should have children, even if it is “inconvenient” or requires “sacrifices”? (See also the italicized passage in the quote below.) That this Orwellian argument is being advanced by the state of Utah – which prides itself on its “conservatism” – is an irony of almost limitless richness.

Hanging By a Thread

Utah then goes on to paint a picture of what would happen in the Beehive State if marriage equality is legalized:

 “By contrast, redefining marriage in genderless terms would tend to reduce fertility rates, for at least three reasons. First … redefining marriage in genderless terms breaks the critical conceptual link between marriage and procreation … Second, … a genderless redefinition would send a powerful message that it is entirely appropriate—even expected—for adults to forego or severely limit the number of their children based on concerns for their own convenience. That a new child might “cramp the style” of an adult would come to be seen as sufficient reason not to have the child at all. That too would tend to reduce fertility rates. Third, to the extent a genderless marriage definition encourages the further abandonment—or privatization—of marriage, it would almost certainly reduce birthrates"[emphasis added]. 

Again, however, I ask: is this an argument of a sovereign state or of a leader in the LDS Church? And, by the way, should I also point out that the State offers absolutely ZERO citations to ANYTHING – no social studies, no legal precedent, nothing – in support of this argument. But I guess that could be easily deduced by the incredible inanity of it.

As in other sections of Utah’s opening argument before the 10th Circuit, there are strong Mormon overtones to this procreation drivel (by which I mean the legal argument, not Mormon doctrine). There is almost a millenialist, impending judgment overtone to it, bringing to mind the legendary prophecy ascribed to Joseph Smith that the US Constitution would one day “hang by a thread” and that it would be members of the LDS Church who would save it. In this section of its argument, the State of Utah sends out a similar warning that same-sex marriage will cause birth rates to plunge to apocalyptic levels. Do the State’s lawyers really expect anyone to treat this argument seriously? (Facepalm)

Alma vs. Oaks: Religion in Civil Society

One of the primary arguments of the State of Utah in its recently filed brief with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals focuses on "preserving Utah’s marriage definition [because it] furthers the State’s vital interests in accommodating religious freedom and reducing the potential for civic strife." 

"Protecting" religious "freedom" has become a common theme among certain conservative religious leaders around the country, including members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy and members of the LDS Church's hierarchy. Elder Dallin Oaks of the Church's quorum of apostles has been particularly vocal on this issue.

In partial response to Utah's brief, I am republishing the following post which was originally published on my Invictus Pilgrim blog in February 2011. I think it is as timely now as it was then.

*********

At another time in my life, I, like most members of the Church, would read what Elder Oaks has said about religious freedom in modern American life and, given that he had an impressive legal career prior to becoming an apostle, assume that he was making valid points that were not only inspired, but based solidly in American constitutional law and tradition. That was at another time in my life. 

This past Friday, Dallin Oaks gave a speech at the law school of Chapman University in California, entitled “Preserving Religious Freedom," the complete transcript of which (along with a video) is available here.  Though I have a legal background, I am not learned in constitutional law and do not propose to comment on Elder Oaks speech from that perspective. But I do not think one needs to be a constitutional scholar to take issue with the basic points that Oaks makes in his address. (It should be kept in mind that Oaks was not addressing an LDS audience in General Conference, but a non-Mormon audience in a secular environment.)

Since he conveniently summarized them at the conclusion of his remarks, I will use these (set out below in bold) as an outline for my comments, heading various sections with his summary points.

One could respond to Elder Oaks’ speech from a number of different perspectives and in a number of different ways. I have chosen to analyze Oak’s comments within the context of a comparison of Elder Oaks’ views on the role of religion in civil society to those of Alma the Younger. Those familiar with the Book of Mormon will remember that, in the first chapters of the Book of Alma, Alma was serving as both high priest of the church as well as chief judge, thus combining ecclesiastical and political power in one person. Because of growing iniquity in the church, however, he eventually decided that he needed to do something. 

Interestingly, however, Alma did not choose to use his political power to enforce standards of morality among his people. Rather, he resigned as chief judge and devoted himself to preaching to the members of the church, “seeing no way that he might reclaim them save it were in bearing down in pure testimony against them … confin[ing] himself wholly to the high priesthood of the holy order of God, to the testimony of the word, according to the spirit of revelation and prophecy” (Alma 4:19-20).

After discussing Elder Oaks’ comments, I would like to return to Alma’s actions in order to compare the way in which Alma chose to address societal “immorality” and lack of belief, versus the positions that Elder Oaks advocates.

Oaks Point #1: “Religious teachings and religious organizations are valuable and important to our free society and therefore deserving of their special legal protection.”

As support for this proposition, Elder Oaks basically makes the argument that religious organizations do a lot of good work in society and teach people to be moral, which in turn supports a stable society and, hence, government. Because of these services, Oaks argues, religious organizations and teachings deserve special legal (as opposed to simply cultural) protection. Among many other things, implicit in Oaks’ statements is that religious speech (i.e., teachings) deserves special legal protection, above any other kind of speech – an important foundation for the rest of his arguments. 

Oaks treats his proposition as self-evident, needing no basis in law or tradition – which he does not in fact cite. Rather, after treating his point as self-evident, he goes on to decry the deterioration of faith in society and implies that this situation provides even more justification for his position.

But why, in fact, should religious organizations, let alone religious teachings be granted special legal protection in 21st- century American society? This is the question that Oaks does not answer. Given that this assertion is the foundation for the rest of his arguments, it deserves careful and critical scrutiny. I will leave this to others. For the purpose of this post, I will simply contrast this approach to the legal status afforded religion with that described in the first part of the Book of Alma as pertaining to Nephite society. Alma did not seek legal buttressing of his preaching; rather he approached the issue from the opposite perspective:  he viewed his preaching as buttressing the legal framework of society.

Oaks Point #2: “Religious freedom undergirds the origin and existence of this country and is the dominating civil liberty.”

Again this assertion, at least the first half of it, sounds totally reasonable on first hearing. But I find the combination of the historical role of religious freedom with the assertion that it is the “dominating civil liberty” disingenuous and, some might argue, insidious. The acknowledgement of the first half of the assertion is apparently intended to lend credence to rather striking assertion that religious freedom is the “dominant liberty” in the panoply of individual rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Oaks offers no scholarly support for this assertion. He cites one document, a report prepared in 1999, but does not identify the authors. Once again, he makes an extremely broad assertion with no authority, treating his conclusion as self-evident. He concludes this section of his speech with a statement which strikes me as breathtaking in its scope: “I maintain, that in our nation's founding and in our constitutional order religious freedom and its associated First Amendment freedoms of speech and press are the motivating and dominating civil liberties and civil rights.” 

Once again, I leave it to others to discourse in a more scholarly fashion on the many implications of this statement. I will simply point out that I find this assertion extraordinary and dangerous, if for no other reason that it purports to again hand organized religion a “trump card” that ensures that freedom of religion trumps every other right guaranteed to American citizens under the Constitution.

Oaks Point #3: “The guarantee of free exercise of religion is weakening in its effects and in public esteem.”

The bulk of Oaks’ speech is directed to a discussion of this point. Having established, in his view, that religious teachings and organizations deserve special legal protection and that freedom of religion (including the all-important right to exercise one’s religion) is the “dominant” civil right, Oaks launches into a lengthy discussion of how the right to exercise (whatever that term means) one’s religion is under assault in modern America. I will focus on only a few of Oaks’ comments, particularly those having to do with gay rights. 

Before launching an attack on gay rights advocates, Oaks plainly highlights one of the main themes of his address: “Religion must preserve its preferred status in our pluralistic society in order to make its unique contribution—its recognition and commitment to values that transcend the secular world."  He then refers to comments that Cardinal Francis George made when speaking at BYU in 2010, who spoke of “threats to religious freedom in America that are new to our history and to our tradition,” one of these being “the development of gay rights and the call for same-sex 'marriage.'"

Oaks describes a number of examples of how he feels that religion has been denied its place in the “public square” by gay rights advocates. In the process, he manages to totally distort the entire debate between those who seek equal civil rights for gays and those, such as the LDS Church, who seek to deny, on religious grounds, these civil rights. In addition to his previous assertions that religious organizations and beliefs should enjoy special legal protection and that freedom of religion is the “dominant” civil right, he now claims that the act of those who assert civil rights for gays is an attack on the freedom of religion (and must therefore be quashed).

“Along with many others,” said Oaks, “I see a serious threat to the freedom of religion in the current assertion of a “civil right" of homosexuals to be free from religious preaching against their relationships. Religious leaders of various denominations affirm and preach that sexual relations should only occur between a man and a woman joined together in marriage. One would think that the preaching of such a doctrinal belief would be protected by the constitutional guarantee of the free exercise of religion, to say nothing of the guarantee of free speech. However, we are beginning to see worldwide indications that this may not be so.  Religious preaching of the wrongfulness of homosexual relations is beginning to be threatened with criminal prosecution or actually prosecuted or made the subject of civil penalties.”

Almost all of the examples cited by Oaks of such “prosecution” involve persons who are trying to assert personal religious beliefs in governmental or quasi-governmental environments. In other words, these individuals have been called out by gay rights advocates for trying to use their public positions to espouse their own individual beliefs. So, not only does Oaks apparently believe that freedom of religion can be used as a “sword” (enjoying special legal protection and status) in public debate, it can also be used as a “shield” to protect it from responsibility for its actions and comments in the “public square” (a classic case in point being the Church’s involvement with Proposition 8). 

Oaks Point #4: “This weakening [of religious freedom] is attributable to the ascendancy of moral relativism.”

This point is pretty much self-explanatory: Oakes decries the “rise” of moral relativism and the corresponding decrease of respect for organized religion. He then concludes with this statement:

“The preservation of religious freedom in our nation depends on the value we attach to the teachings of right and wrong in our churches, synagogues and mosques. It is faith in God—however defined—that translates these religious teachings into the moral behavior that benefits the nation. As fewer and fewer citizens believe in God and in the existence of the moral absolutes taught by religious leaders, the importance of religious freedom to the totality of our citizens is diminished. We stand to lose that freedom if many believe that religious leaders, who preach right and wrong, make no unique contribution to society and therefore should have no special legal protection.”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it sure seems to me that Elder Oaks is essentially saying that the fact that more and more people in society have less and less respect for organized religion militates even more strongly for a special legal protection being given to the “unique contribution” that organized religion makes to society. Nothing seems plainer to me, however, that the intent of the Founders was to ensure that organized religion did not enjoy a privileged place in American society. Rather, religion was to do its thing, and government was to do its thing. Period.

Put another way, Elder Oaks’ assertions appear to put new garb on the age-old practice of trying to legislate morality: rather than simply having the government do organized religion’s bidding, organized religion seeks special protection and status within society to advance its agenda.

Oaks concludes by calling for a “broad coalition” to defend religious liberty, as he sees it: “All that is necessary for unity and a broad coalition along the lines I am suggesting is a common belief that there is a right and wrong in human behavior that has been established by a Supreme Being.” The question, of course, is who decides what that right and wrong is, and how much privilege, deference and protection are religious organizations and beliefs to be accorded in society in advancing “religious” views of right and wrong.

Conclusion

Many, if not most, members of the LDS Church will cheer Elder Oaks’ comments without giving them any serious thought. The bells and whistles, the catch-phrases, the code words are all there, triggering emotional responses that evoke that often-deadly mix within many members of patriotism, faith and blind obedience. 

But I maintain that if thinking members of the Church would step back and consider the lesson of Alma from the Book of Mormon, as well as the ramifications of the central doctrine of the plan of salvation (free agency), they could not help but be deeply troubled by Elder Oaks’ comments. If organized religious organizations would do as Alma did, i.e., confining themselves “wholly to … the testimony of the word, according to the spirit of revelation and prophecy” then they would fulfill the task which Elder Oaks ascribes to them – without needing special status, privilege or protection in civil society.

Utah's Could Likely Might Arguments

As I was reading through the State of Utah’s recently-filed brief to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, I began to notice something: the number of times that words like “could,” “likely,” “might” and “could” were used in advancing Utah’s arguments.

I’m sure that the plaintiffs'  attorneys will address this in their brief, but I thought it might be informative and instructive to highlight some of the passages of the brief that use one or more of these words (and highlight how outrageously silly some of Utah's arguments are):

“[I]n a variety of ways, redefining marriage in genderless terms would LIKELY reduce, over time, the proportion of children being raised in one of [Utah’s preferred] arrangements [for raising children] —thus placing at serious risk the welfare of children who will be raised in other arrangements as a result.”

“The State has a compelling interest in ensuring adequate reproduction and, conversely, in avoiding a definitional change that (over time) COULD help send its birthrate below replacement levels.”

“Utah’s self- sacrificing, child-centric view of marriage and parenting is important to a range of parental decisions beyond ensuring that the child is raised by both her father and her mother. For example, it MIGHT encourage parents to forego abusing alcohol or drugs; avoid destabilizing extramarital affairs; avoid excessively demanding work schedules; or limit time-consuming hobbies or other interests that take them away from their children.”

“[C]ompared to children born in all the States, a child born in Utah has the best chance of knowing and being reared by his or her biological married mother and father. That fact also LIKELY explains why Utah has a very small percentage of its children growing up in poverty—15%, the fourth lowest in the Nation, compared to a national average of 23%. It also LIKELY explains why Utah children, even in the lowest-income households, have one of the highest rates of upward mobility.”

“[T]he loss of the State’s clear message in favor of biological mother-father parenting within marriage would LIKELY result in a higher percentage of couples conceiving children without the stability that marriage would otherwise bring. “

“[A group of scholars cited by Utah in its argument] show that ‘[s]ame-sex marriage . . . would undermine the idea that children need both a mother and a father, further weakening the societal norm that men should take responsibility for the children they beget.’ Over time, this too would LIKELY lead to more children being raised—and for longer periods—without both of their biological parents.” 

“[A] genderless definition of marriage would LIKELY increase the number of children being raised by same-sex parents. That could happen because the couple decides to raise together an existing child of one of the partners. Or it could result from the conception of a new child through surrogacy or sperm-donation. Either way, such children will not benefit from the State’s preferred mother-father parenting model.” 

“[I]f the traditional male-female aspect of marriage were thrown out as irrational, it would LIKELY become more difficult to resist other innovations that would lead to additional children being raised without a father or mother [such as group marriage].” 

“[A] court-ordered redefinition of marriage COULD WELL lead to its wholesale ‘privatization’ [Utah’s word for civil marriage, which is the practice in most European countries and other countries around the world]—for example, by enactment of a civil union regime for all couples, with religious and other organizations being free to offer the title of “marriage” as they see fit … In Utah and elsewhere, judicial invalidation of the traditional definition of marriage COULD WELL create a broad political consensus for such a radical step. Such a development—and the consequent reduction in governmental encouragement for marriage—COULD WELL cause a substantial decline in the public’s interest in marriage, similar to the decline already seen in many parts of Europe.”  

“And if marriage is privatized, or if it comes to be understood as primarily for the benefit of adults rather than children, then those who wish to have children (or to engage in conduct that could lead to children [umm, do they mean having sex?]) MAY choose not to marry if they believe other social arrangements would better serve their individual needs.” 

“Governments WOULD LIKELY be pressured—and PERHAPS agree—to revoke the tax-exempt status of churches or other non-profit religious organizations that refuse on religious grounds to recognize same-sex marriages or to provide benefits to same-sex couples on the same terms as husband-wife couples. 

“Governments WOULD LIKELY be pressured—and PERHAPS agree—to investigate, prosecute and punish people in wedding-related businesses for refusing on religious conscience grounds to assist with same-sex weddings. 

“Governments WOULD LIKELY be pressured—and PERHAPS agree—to punish school teachers for refusing on religious conscience grounds to endorse same-sex marriage or for expressing contrary views. 

“Government licensing agencies WOULD LIKELY be pressured—and PERHAPS agree—to investigate and punish counselors for refusing on religious conscience grounds to counsel same-sex married couples on the same terms as heterosexual couples. Religion-based conflicts between public schools and parents WOULD LIKELY increase as children are taught about sexuality and marriage in ways that contravene parents’ and students’ deeply held religious beliefs. 

“Governments WOULD LIKELY be pressured—and might agree—to punish religious colleges and similar institutions for adhering to their views on marriage in such things as married student housing, hiring, and curriculum.”

All of these arguments are based a politics of fear - a politics that plays better in the political realm than in the legal one, where speculation, especially without evidence to back it up, is frowned upon. They are also reflective of a worldview that mixes religion with law - a topic that I will address tomorrow.

Utah's Proclamation on the Family

"The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to 

His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, 

and to be reared by a father and a mother ..." 

"We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish 

the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the 

sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, 

lawfully wedded as husband and wife."

~ The Family: A Proclamation to the World

(by the First Presidency and Quorum of Apostles of the LDS Church)

Utah makes no bones about it. Marriage in Utah is about Utah "family values."

Translation: Marriage in Utah is about Mormon family values. Specifically, marriage is all about children.* This, I think, was the thrust of Utah's opening brief to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals that was filed late Monday night. And this, given who was hired to handle Utah's appeal, is exactly what I anticipated when the state announced the composition of its legal team a few weeks ago.

There is much that could be written about Utah's brief, but in this post I want to focus on the fact that the State's position on marriage, as embodied in its arguments (as well as in its current laws and policies), is a political and legal embodiment of LDS teachings about the family. 

In its brief, the State argues that its interests in implicitly preserving and enforcing these teachings provide a rational basis for its refusal to legally recognize same-sex marriages. Though the LDS Church is never mentioned in the brief (so far as I recall), anyone who is to any degree familiar with the Church's teachings on the family will recognize these teachings as being reflected in the State's brief. Here are just a few quotes:

"First and foremost, the man-woman definition of marriage promotes the interests of children by fostering a generally child-centric marriage culture that encourages parents routinely to subordinate their own private interests - emotional, sexual, career, recreational, etc. - to the needs of their children, present and future. That encouragement flows not just from the law - including restrictions on divorce and prohibitions on such things as child neglect - but also from the cultural expectations, norms and ideals that make marriage a social institution. In a host of ways, such rules, norms and expectations guide husband-wife couples to sacrifice their personal desires for the benefit of their children"

"Utah's marriage definition furthers the State's vital interest in fostering a child-centric marriage culture that encourages parents to subordinate their own interests to the needs of their children. At the most basic level, Utah has a critical interest in preserving the child-centric husband-wife ("conjugal") marriage culture that it has carefully nurtured since its inception as a state."

"As presently understood in Utah ... marriage's most vital public purpose is to encourage the creation of stable, husband-wife unions for the benefit of their children."

"[Children are] "a principal object of the marital relationship."

"Utah's self-sacrificing, child-centric view of marriage and parenting is important to a range of parental decisions beyond ensuring that the child is raised by both her father and her mother. For example, it might encourage parents to forego abusing alcohol or drugs; avoid destabilizing extramarital affairs; avoid excessively demanding work schedules; or limit time-consuming hobbies or other interests that take them away from their children."

An interesting exercise is to substitute the words "the LDS Church" for every instance in which "Utah" or "the State" is mentioned in these quoted passages.

Now, while it is generally conceded that the teachings of the LDS Church have traditionally contributed to the stability of Utah's families, as reflected in historically lower divorce rates, lower illegitimacy rates, etc., and while I am fully aware of the importance of the Church's teachings about eternal families to members of the LDS Church - teachings with which I do not take issue in this post - it is wrong for the State to serve as the enforcer of Mormon teachings - even if a majority of the citizens in this state are Mormon.** It is further wrong - and unconstitutional - to use such teachings in order to deny civil rights to a minority of citizens of this state.

* Judge Shelby took issue with this position in his ruling, which I wrote about here. 

** I personally believe that a large percentage of active members of the LDS Church - particularly those under the age of 30 - would take issue with the heavy-handed, conservative, hierarchical view of marriage that is reflected in the State's arguments, resenting the notion that their main purpose in marriage is to produce babies, and the more the better.

Those Uppity Gays

In commemoration of Utah filing its brief late last night with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeal, I am republishing this piece which was originally written during the Chick-fil-A controversy and published on another of my blogs, Beyond the Closet Door (now closed). I have updated certain aspects of the post to reflect contemporary events.

Recent events in Utah and around the country with respect to marriage equality remind me of a period of time in recent American history when a segment of our society that tried to assert what it believed to be its civil rights and dignity was brutally repressed, particularly in a certain section of the country.

I refer, of course, to African-Americans – which is certainly not what they were called back then.

Recently, I loaned our copy of The Help to my young teenage son to watch. He told me later that he enjoyed the movie but was appalled that black people were actually treated that way. I was dismayed, but not surprised I suppose, that he knew so little about what things were like “back then.”  

My son has probably never even heard the word “nigger.” The thought that a black person was forced to use separation public washrooms, was expected to sit at the back of the bus, was expected to remember her place, was expected to accept second-class citizenship and (perhaps most of all) was expected not get “uppity” and aspire to being treated equally – all of this was beyond the pale of my son’s comprehension.

I gave him a very brief history of what it was like, what I remember watching on the news growing up in the 60’s. What I didn’t go into was the way segregation was viewed by society at large, particularly in the South. How in those days, sermons were preached in many pulpits about the propriety of keeping things “the way God intended them to be.” How those who were trying to change things were called “agitators” and were routinely intimidated, beaten or even murdered. How most people were simply part of the “silent majority” who didn’t commit acts of violence but who nevertheless – to one degree or another – agreed with those of their ilk who were committing acts of violence, whether government-sanctioned (e.g., police) or acts of vigilantism. 

What I think he would have had the most trouble comprehending, however, is the concept that African-Americans were expected to just accept the order of things as dictated by the racist white majority. Blacks were expected to see themselves as inferior, because of course they were. No amount of “agitation” could change the religiously-sanctioned (and even promoted) view that blacks were inferior to whites and needed to be treated so. What really enraged certain segments of the white population in the South (as well as elsewhere in the country) was when blacks simply refused to accept this status-quo. How dare they be so uppity!

So, here we are in 2014, and the same thing is going on – only this time, it’s the gays that are being uppity. Certain segments of the population are perhaps willing - at least publicly - to accept the existence of homosexuals, but they are enraged that gays presume to aspire to the same degree of civic equality as heterosexuals. They insist that gays accept second-class status and are infuriated (or express other, varying degrees of indignation) when we refuse to do so.

To me, the Chick-fil-A thing, as well as Marriage Equality in Utah (and elsewhere) is all about Dignity. Vast swaths of our society expect us to accept their world-view, their beliefs about ourselves and their views as to what we are entitled in the way of civil rights. The fact that we refuse to do so makes some of them practically foam at the mouth, whereas others look on in cold, stoney silence.

I wonder, will my grandchildren, 40 years from now, express incredulity that a minority in our society was discriminated against, suffered acts of violence and was expected to know their place and keep it? Will they find it difficult to comprehend that religious organizations actively participated in this discrimination and fostered this intolerance and hate? Will they wonder why a majority of society simply accepted this situation as being part of the natural order of things?

I hope so.

I Am: Coming Out as a Gay Father in a Mormon World

This is a retrospective post. I began the process of coming out almost 3-1/2 years ago (can it have been that long ago?). A huge part of that process involved (i) overcoming shame and internalized homophobia and (ii) discovering and/or recovering who I really was/am as a person. It also involved dealing with my relationship with the LDS Church, of which I had been an active member for over 25 years.

A Merging of Worlds

I think I navigated the initial process of coming out fairly well, all things considered – especially given the fact that I had been deeply closeted for decades - really for almost my entire life. I (re)discovered much about myself, about who I really am – though this was an on-going process. I still found myself dealing with issues relating to internalized homophobia, but I had come a long, long way from where I was before coming out.  

During those months of coming out and self-discovery, I had regular visits with my children.   Although I experienced some disorientation from time to time as I moved from my gay world to that of a “Disney Dad” (as one friend termed it), there was basically a bifurcation between the two spheres. All of this started to change when, almost simultaneously, my wife initiated divorce proceedings and I met the man who became my partner, my soon-to-be husband. 

Initially, I found myself going back into the closet, so to speak, because I didn’t want either my children or my wife to know about my blossoming relationship with my partner. I felt those same old feelings of shame, secrecy and blurring of identity.

I hated not being able to be “out” about my relationship with the man with whom I had fallen in love. I hated those old feelings of having to hide, which in turn engendered feelings of shame. On the one hand, I knew I had to be prudent and circumspect; but on the other hand I hated feeling that I had to compromise due to who I am – a gay man living in a Mormon culture and part of a Mormon family.

Over the course of the ensuing months, we worked our way through divorce proceedings and I gradually introduced my children to my partner. Gradually, both they and my ex-wife learned that I was living with my partner, and both she and the children came to know and understand the nature of our relationship. The old bifurcated world of “Disney Dad” and “out gay man” merged into one world as I established a home with my partner.  He became part of my children’s lives and they are a part of his life and of our life together.  

This merging of worlds, however, forced me to face new issues as I continued the process of coming out as a gay father. I came to some interesting realizations as I experienced the stress produced when my new reality butted up against the Mormon reality of my children.

What Gay Mormon Fathers Face

Of course, I wasn't alone in what I was experiencing. I knew of a number of men who were in the same situation as I. Though coming out at any age, particularly within the Mormon culture and construct, is difficult, the coming out process for men who were married, had children and were active in the LDS Church was and is uniquely challenging. Not only must such men come to terms with their true innate sexuality, but they must also – if they make the decision to come out, or if it is somehow made for them – go through a process of coming out as a gay father.

• They must reconcile the “Plan of Happiness” (i.e., the Church's plan for a happy and fulfilling life, involving heterosexual marriage, children, church activity, etc.) – which they have tried to live for years or even decades – with who they really are.
• They must find meaning in having lived what in most instances amounted (to one degree or another) to a lie – however well-intentioned – to themselves and/or to their spouse and their children. 
• They quite often find that the belief system that framed their entire existence during their marriage - and provided a purpose to life - is no longer valid.
• They discover that their role as a father was so tightly entwined with LDS teachings, Church activities and Church culture that, once they have either chosen or been forced to leave the Church, that role must – to one degree or another – be reinvented.
• They find themselves ostracized not only as a gay man but also as a gay father.  They are often accused of choosing to abandon their wife and children just so they can “go out and have gay sex” or “live a gay lifestyle.”  In the process, they are frequently demonized and dehumanized, their most inner selves laid bare to assault and ridicule.
• They are faced with helping their children cope with a situation that not only (usually) results in/contributes to divorce, but also in trying to help them get to know a man they thought they knew, but who in reality was largely a shell, a false persona, an actor on a stage who was trying as best he knew how to play his part.
• They are faced with efforts by others to shame them, to deny or erase their existence, to cover-up who they are, to make excuses for them, and to deny access to their children. They are not supposed to exist. Their mere existence, who they are, is treated as an affront that could have deleterious results to the psyches of their children.

The Loss of the "Forms" of Mormon Fatherhood

It was during this time, while reading Eckhart Tolle’s bestseller, A New Earth, I came across some passages that I found jarring and directly applicable to this situation I have just described:

“There are many accounts of people who experienced [an] emerging new dimension of consciousness as a result of tragic loss at some point in their lives. Some lost all of their possessions, others their children or spouse, their social position, reputation, or physical abilities. In some cases, through disaster or war, they lost all of these simultaneously and found themselves with ‘nothing.’ We may call this a limit-situation. Whatever they had identified with, whatever gave them their sense of self, had been taken away.”

To paraphrase Tolle, I realized that many of us, as gay men who had been Mormon fathers, lost – whether literally or metaphorically, whether we surrendered it or it was taken from us – much of what we once were and found ourselves with “nothing.” Whatever we had identified with, whatever gave us our sense of self, had been taken away or simply left behind. 

When I read what Tolle had written, what occurred to me is that I had identified with - in Tolle-ian language - the “forms” of Mormon fatherhood and with the Mormon heterosexual priesthood idyll.  “Ego,” writes Tolle, “is always identification with form, seeking yourself and thereby losing yourself in some form. Forms are not just material objects and physical bodies. More fundamental than the external forms—things and bodies—are the thought forms that continuously arise in the field of consciousness."

Freed from Form

For many years, I realized, I had sought my identity – and in the process lost myself – in the “forms” of Mormon fatherhood and the Mormon heterosexual priesthood. These forms provided a framework in which to conduct my life. When I came out, I lost that framework. But, this loss provided opportunity: “When there is nothing to identify with anymore,” writes Tolle, “who are you? When forms around you die … your sense of Beingness, of I Am, is freed from its entanglement with form. The ultimate truth of who you are is not I am this or I am that, but I Am.”

So, this collapse presented opportunity, as well as a choice. “Whenever tragic loss occurs,” writes Tolle, “you either resist or you yield. Some people become bitter or deeply resentful; others become compassionate, wise, and loving. Yielding means inner acceptance of what is. You are open to life … When you yield internally, when you surrender, a new dimension of consciousness opens up.”

So, instead of trying to graft the Mormon fatherhood form onto my new life situation, I gradually, then abruptly in moments of clarity, came to see that I needed to let go of that form which was tightly entwined with LDS teachings, Church activities and Church culture. I then could allow myself to embrace new opportunities to define for myself my role as father. I accepted myself as gay and gave up trying to somehow reconcile that reality to the “Plan of Happiness.” I shut off the fuel-supply to efforts by others to shame me, to deny or erase my existence – because it is only by continuing to ascribe to that old form that these people could reach me and hurt me.  

Of course, this was not something that could be done overnight, but it gave me a vision for moving forward into a new consciousness, a new way of thinking, that could bring great joy not only to myself, but also to my children.

Mixed-Orientation Marriages: "A Situation That Defies Our Nature"

I have had some private correspondence in the last couple of weeks* with a couple of gay men who are each in a mixed-orientation marriage (MOM). Though not the same age, both men have been married about the same length of time and each has several children ranging in age from about six to young teenager.

(*This post was originally published in December 2010 on my Invictus Pilgrim blog, which is now closed. I explain here why I decided to re-post some of these old posts here on this blog. This post, which was one of a series about mixed-orientation marriages, won the 2010 Brodie Award for Best Religion and Homosexuality Discussion.)

After reading these men’s stories, I felt they needed to be told in a forum such as this.  These are real-life stories of good men who entered into a MOM in good faith, but who have reached the end of their respective ropes. I have asked both of these men if I could post some of their words here, and each has given their permission. I wanted them to be able to speak with their own voices. Each faces monumental challenges, and each has become, to one extent or another, disillusioned with the LDS Church (but not, at least in one case, with the Gospel).

“The core identity we possess does not change.”

The first man I’ll call James. This is part of what he wrote to me following the series of posts on MOMs a couple of weeks ago:

All the discussion about Moho's [Mormon Homosexuals] in MOM's has left me in deep introspection.  I do realize that we all have different situations, and one solution may not fit all circumstances. There is a common undercurrent though, that runs through almost everything I have read. Without any exception that I can think of, Moho's who have gotten married, and who are still married, find a part of them that wishes it had never happened. 

At its core, we are gay men living in a situation that defies our nature. Yes we may have a loving and understanding spouse, but we are the other half of the equation that cannot make the whole no matter how hard we try. We can sacrifice, compromise, work hard, and even have joy and happiness for ourselves and our spouse, but we cannot give all. That part of us that is gay, that core identity we possess, does not change, and is not satisfied in a heterosexual relationship. 

That brings me to another point. When I first went through a crisis last year (when I accepted the fact that I am and always will be gay), I emailed Carol Lynn Pearson for her perspective and asked specifically if it was possible or even desirable for a gay man to remain married to a straight spouse.  In her response she told me to "live with as much honesty and integrity as possible." I thought about that statement as if it were a new found concept. I felt I finally had the key to my happiness. It was then I finally internalized, recognized and acknowledged that I was gay, and that it was normal and good and beautiful. I am so thick-headed to have missed that concept years ago (before I married). 

This knowledge presents me with a dilemma. I do want to live with more integrity, or more authentically as I have heard it put more succinctly. If I am authentic, then as a gay man I should not be married, and reason would have it that I should also seek a relationship that will make me whole. If I am authentic, then as a father I cannot abandon my family to whom I am morally and emotionally committed.  This sucks. 

When this whole episode in my life burst open, I felt comfort, for lack of a better term, that I had experienced (as a young man living as a gay man) a somewhat authentic life and authentic love. At least I knew and had experienced what some could only guess at. Increasingly, that memory stings me. I feel like a coward for running back to the Church (after several years of living as a gay man), and running back into the closet because I couldn't handle the truth. I couldn't face my family … and turn my back on a pioneer heritage that included so much personal sacrifice for the Church. If they could scratch out a living in desolate Utah, then [I figured] it must be a worthy cause and surely I could make my own sacrifice. I felt that if I openly came out as gay, then I would negate all my ancestors’ efforts …

My wife did know about my same sex attraction before we married, but it wasn't until last year that I really understood that it was a part of me that was not going to go away, and that pushing it away was killing me.   

“I would rather die.  And so I am dying.”

The second man, I’ll call Scott. I received the following message from him this week. (By way of background, he has been seeing a counselor, but is considering switching to someone else, as he finds his present counselor unhelpful.)

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. Though I can pretend!  If there is one thing I have learned over the years, it is how to pretend, to be what everyone else needs, to sublimate my own needs/desires/self so that others can have what they need.

I don’t care about the Church any more. They offer me nothing, but expect me to deny everything about myself. Yet, when I read the scriptures, they say something entirely different. When I attend the temple, I get answers I need, not the lame half-answers the Church hands out.

God says one thing... while the Church says something else.

I am not happy in the life they said would bring me happiness. 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.

I am depressed most of the time. It sucks. I want to be happy. I want to be happy with my kids. I want to be a real person. But it doesn't look like it ever will be in my cards.