Imperfections Not of Our Choosing

"A same­ gender relationship is inconsistent with God’s eternal pattern ... 

We all struggle with imperfections, some not of our choosing."

~ Tad Callister, Mormon General Authority

The Mormon social media lit up this past week concerning an article in the March issue of the Ensign authored by Tad Callister, a member of the Presidency of the Seventy. Most of the discussion focused on Callister's comments concerning young women being the guardians of the virtue of the young men of the Church.

But he had a lot of other things to say on the subject of morality, including some choice comments about those "who have same-gender tendencies." (Just as Callister could not bring himself to use the word "masturbation," using instead the term "self-abuse," he apparently could not even bring himself to use the term "same-sex attraction" to describe homosexuality.)

There is oh so much that could be written about the few short paragraphs that Elder Callister devotes to "same gender relationships," but I'd like to focus in this post on the following passage:

"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)."

I cannot express how much I wrestled with this scripture for almost three decades of my life. And I'm quite confident in stating that I doubt there is a gay or lesbian Mormon who has not done the same - who, in the infamous words of Spencer W. Kimball, has knocked on that door that would banish their homosexuality "until [their] knuckles are bloody, till [their] head is bruised, till [their] muscles are sore? 

This scripture was a constant reminder that I obviously wasn't doing something right, regardless of how hard I tried. I knew what my "weakness" was. I tried to be humble, I tried to have faith. I got married. I had 10 children. I did everything I could. But still the weakness remained.

Mormon theology and culture encourages one to perceive of oneself as Superman (or Wonder Woman, as the case may be). There's a lot of talk in the LDS Church about the "power of the Atonement" and "applying the Atonement" - as in Elder Callister's article. As I once explained to a non-Mormon friend, what this technically means, in Mormon theology, is that Jesus took upon himself all our sins, thus enabling us to be redeemed from the Fall. However, Mormons add the gloss that Jesus not only redeemed us from our sins but also from all sorts of bad stuff that aren't really sins but make life pretty shitty. Technically, Mormon theology teaches the centrality of Jesus' atonement and our reliance upon him, and him alone, to "save" us.

Putting technicalities aside, the practical matter is that members of the Church typically believe that their salvation is up to them. This is one of the elephants in every Mormon living room, so to speak - never discussed, but everyone knows it is there. Members may have to go to the celestial store and purchase some "Atonement" in order to apply to their lives - thus leading to a beautifully insightful comment made by Dr. Bill Bradshaw (one of the founders of LDS Family Fellowship) that many Mormons tend to approach the Atonement as "consumers" - but beyond that, it's up to them. 

Gay Mormons are repeatedly told that, first of all, they're not "gay," they're "same gender attracted," and second, that they can "overcome" their "feelings of same gender attraction" by "applying the Atonement." They are also told - repeatedly - that God gives no commandment to his children unless he prepares a way for them to do what he has commanded (another Book of Mormon scripture). This deadly spiritual mix has led to an existential despair that, on far too many occasions, has led gay Mormon men to kill themselves.

Thus the Superman comment. In my case, I carried my own Kryptonite deep inside me. It - my innate homosexuality - was my greatest weakness, the one I tried most desperately to hide, to control, to subdue, to eliminate (as if it was something that could be flushed through my bowels from my body).  I prayed, I fasted, I "applied the Atonement." But still my "weakness" was there, sucking the life out of me.

It was only when I came out that my greatest weakness became my greatest strength, my greatest asset, my secret weapon that exploded from within, shattering my false persona, my heterosexual Mormon identity and, ultimately, my faith in Mormonism. Ironically, in so doing, I fulfilled - in a manner of speaking - the scripture that had haunted me for so many years.  I no longer felt the need to be Superman. I realized that be strong, all I had to do was to be myself.

In Plain View: Utah, the Zion Curtain and Gays

Yesterday, I heard on the radio that a member of the Utah Legislature, Kraig Powell, proposed an alternative to Utah's so-called "Zion Curtains" - partitions that are required in restaurants that serve alcohol so that the public's view of a bartender's mixing of alcoholic drinks is restricted. Powell proposed that restaurants be able to opt out of using the partition if they post a notice on all entrances and in their menus that reads: "Notice: This establishment dispenses and serves alcoholic products in public view."

There have been several attempts in the past few years in the Utah legislature to remove the "Zion Curtain" requirement; but this year, the LDS Church made the rare move of publicly opposing (as opposed to privately through discreet lobbyists) the barriers' removal, saying that separate alcohol preparation areas are part of an effective system for protecting against underage drinking, overconsumption and DUIs.

Right.

The real purpose, as everyone knows, is to try to hide the presence of alcohol in Utah society. The LDS Church takes the position that if alcohol is hidden, then the youth of Zion will be less likely to be enticed into drinking. But even the very conservative, very Republican, very Mormon Speaker of the House, Becky Lockhart, has called the partition "weird" and has said there's no evidence that it prevents children from taking up drinking.

When I heard the phrase "public view" on the radio, something clicked in my mind over which I've been ruminating for some time, i.e., the real reason why the State of Utah is so fiercely opposing marriage equality is that the State has constructed a "Zion Curtain" between its citizens who are LGBT and those who are not. 

So long as the State can keep gays and lesbians out of the public view - whether through opposing same-sex marriage or nondiscrimination legislation or in other ways - it can - as it believes (and as the LDS Church hierarchy believes) - keep the youth of Zion from being "corrupted" by homosexuality. Marriage equality, however, will remove that curtain, exposing the reality of gays and lesbians and the love that they share to not only the youth of Zion but to all Utahns. And this is what the State of Utah - as well as many other states around the country - as well as the Mormon Church, fears.

What Is the Hidden Gay Agenda?

There has been much written over the past few days about the "hidden gay agenda." Here are my thoughts about what the hidden gay agenda consists of:

To learn to love oneself rather than despising oneself

To learn to accept oneself completely, rather than utterly reject oneself

To learn to own and celebrate one’s own unique gift to life instead of 

hiding one’s light in a closet.

To encourage oneself and others to embrace life, rather than fear it

To learn to be tolerant of others and to extend that gift to oneself 

To learn to celebrate diversity, rather than fear it

To learn to experience first hand the love of God 

instead of feeling condemned by God

To encourage others to allow themselves be loved by God, just as they are

To offer to others what gay people have learned 

on their journey through life as an “other”

To bring fresh and beautiful meaning to the concept of “family”

To bring families together, rather than tearing them apart

To open minds and hearts that may have been closed 

to the beauty of the world around them

To share the gift of authenticity and empowerment with countless numbers 

of non-gay people who live in closets of fear, low self-esteem,

ignorance of self and shallow relationships

Within religious communities, to challenge oneself and others 

to look at and use the Bible as an instrument of love 

rather than oppression, hatred and fear

Within Mormon families, to present opportunities 
to look at the concept of family 

in a way that is reflective of relationships, 
rather than ritual 

BTW, the lead picture is of my partner Mark and his grand-nephew sharing a popsicle

The Gay Agenda of Disney's Frozen: Them That Call Good Evil

The Mormon social media world as well as realms beyond have been abuzz the last couple of days about a blog post written by "A Well-Behaved Mormon Woman" about the hidden gay agenda in Disney's Frozen.

My response to this woman, as well as to many, many other Mormons and conservative Christians is condensed from a post I wrote a year and a half ago. It is based on a well-known scripture that is very well-known within the Mormon community and that has unfortunately, like many other scriptures, been used as a weapon of hate and intolerance. Here is the scripture:

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; 

that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; 

that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

~ Isaiah 5:20

This scripture has often - many times - been used to condemn what are perceived as "wicked" practices and trends in society, as well as to defend LDS Church doctrine, policies and practices. Those who have different views from the Church - or from certain Church members - are perceived as calling evil good, of putting darkness for light and bitter for sweet. 

On the other hand, those who criticize certain doctrine, policies and practices of the Church are perceived as calling good evil, of calling that which is light, darkness, and of calling that which is sweet, bitter. 

These kinds of attitudes are deliberately fostered within the LDS Church (as well as in many other conservative Christian denominations) with respect to many issues and teachings. Mormons are taught to view themselves as both guardians of virtue and recipients of the mockery of the prideful world (e.g., in Lehi's Dream). This view tends to promote self-righteousness and a rigid, skewed and frankly uncharitable world view, justified by scriptures such as Isaiah 5:20.

But I'd like to turn this scripture around, looking at the Church's teachings about homosexuality and family. I'd like to suggest that it is the Church (through its doctrines, practices and policies that have in turn affected the attitudes of millions of Church members), that has called good, evil.

For most of its history, in fact until just recently, the Church taught that those who experience feelings of attraction to members of their own sex were depraved, in grave danger of hellfire. Men and women, but primarily men, were (and are) labeled and judged based on a single (but very important) characteristic - their sexual orientation. 

Any other "redeeming" qualities of such persons that were/are "virtuous, lovely or of good report," were ignored. Such people were/are "evil," and it wouldn't do for them to be considered "good." They had to change from "evil" to "good." Any pronouncement that gays are just as good as other people (or just as bad), that homosexuality is not a moral issue, was calling evil, good; and any criticism leveled at the Church for its teachings on homosexuality was essentially calling good, evil.

The Church teaches and has always taught that "acting" on one's gay sexual orientation is a sin and bad. And this is not limited to actual sex. It applies to any other type of feelings or displays of affection that, with respect to a heterosexual relationship, would be considered healthy, appropriate and in no way a violation of the law of chastity - but with respect to a same-sex relationship is wrong. In fact, there is no such thing as a same-sex "relationship" in the Church - at least nothing that could be considered "good." Mormon gays are expected to be not only celibate sexually, but celibate emotionally as well. 

And as to gay relationships, gay partnerships and gay marriage, the Church's stance was pretty well stated recently by Elder Boyd Packer when he referred to same-sex marriages and partnerships as "Satan's counterfeit for marriage." Any claim that such relationships were anything but bad was calling evil good, and any criticism of the Church's stance in this regard is calling good evil.

But I think it is time to turn Isaiah around. The Church - and most pointedly for present purposes, the Well-Behaved Mormon Woman - is calling something that is good, evil. It is labeling something that is full of light, darkness. It is claiming that something that is sweet, bitter. 

Thankfully, more and more people are realizing that not only the LDS Church, but many other conservative Christian denominations, pundits and political groups are, I believe, under Isaiah's condemnation. More and more people are realizing that what they had taught to regard as evil is nothing of the sort; that their sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers are not the people that others would portray them to be; that these people's relationships are based on love, commitment and dignity - not depraved sexuality as they had been taught.

And when they see love for what it truly is, when they give themselves permission to act on the love they have for their gay family members, they in turn are blessed with that same love and are enabled to better view the world as a place of goodness, sweetness and light, rather than a vale of evil, bitterness and darkness.

"He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; 

and what doth the LORD require of thee, 

but to do justly, and to love mercy, 

and to walk humbly with thy God?"

~ Micah 6:8

The Nonsensical Bogeyman Brief of the LDS Church

An amicus (friend of the court) brief (the “Brief) was filed last week with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in connection with Utah’s and Oklahoma’s marriage equality cases. It was proffered on behalf of the LDS Church, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and several other conservative religious organizations (together referred to below as the “Churches”), and was prepared by the General Counsel of the Bishops’ Conference and by the “Church’s law firm,” Kirton McConkie of Salt Lake City.

A friend asked me after the Brief was filed whether I would be writing a piece about it. I was out of town this past week, but beyond that, I had skimmed the brief and frankly found it bizarre. I wasn’t really motivated to wade into those waters.

But I thought I’d read it again this past weekend to see if my initial impression had changed. Nope. I still find it bizarre for at least three reasons.

First, the brief seems to me to bear no rational relationship to the issues that will be before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. The main thrust of the “legal argument” – if such it may be called – is to defensively assert that the Churches are not full of bigots. The brief indignantly asserts that accusations of “antigay animus” that are seen to be hurled at the Churches are “false and offensive” (see sample quote below). 

While the Churches have the right to, as they see it, defend themselves, they are not parties to the litigation, and whether or not they feel slighted has no relevance to the legal issues involved. The nonsensical-ness of the argument could not be better stated than in their own words: 

“In this brief we demonstrate that Utah’s and Oklahoma’s marriage laws should not be overturned based on the spurious charge that religious organizations support such laws out of animus.” 

Huh? Ummm, it’s not all about you, Churches, despite how much you like to think it is; and as much as you think that your interests are the same as that of the state, you’re wrong. 

Second, the Brief is full of discussion of “animus.” (The word is mentioned 30 times in the brief.) Now, in terms of analyzing whether a law that discriminates (in the neutral sense) against a class of people is constitutional, courts must first determine what level of scrutiny is applicable to such analysis. In certain cases, courts apply a heightened scrutiny test, in which animus (dislike) plays a part; i.e., the courts inquire as to whether the legislative body (i.e., not the Churches) was motivated by animus toward the class of people in enacting a discriminatory law.

But the thing is, in Utah’s case (Kitchen v. Herbert), Judge Robert Shelby, although he queried whether heightened scrutiny should be used, ultimately relied on a lower test, i.e., the “rational basis” test – in which a finding of animus is not a factor. In fact, Judge Shelby specifically found that he could not inquire into the mind of Utah voters when they passed Amendment 3, thereby dismissing any allegations of animus. So, in legal terms, the discussion of animus by the Churches in the Brief is irrelevant (not to mention nonsensical).

Third, the Brief takes up the bizarre (from a legal standpoint) refrain that Judge Shelby called Utah voters irrational in adopting Amendment 3 (and that his Oklahoma counterpart similarly insulted the citizens of Oklahoma). This refrain is announced in the Brief’s Introduction:

“A common theme has arisen among advocates for redefining marriage to include same-sex couples: that those who oppose them must be irrational or even bigoted—that they are motivated by “antigay animus,” whether in the form of unthinking ignorance or actual hostility. Such aspersions, which take various forms, are often cast at people and institutions of faith. The accusation is false and offensive.”

That such an argument could be advanced by presumably competent constitutional lawyers is, well, difficult to believe.

The rational basis test is based on a well-developed body of constitutional law as formed by the Supreme Court and consists of inquiry by the court as to whether there is a rational basis between the stated legislative goals of a questionable statute and the provisions of such a statute (or constitutional amendment). This inquiry has nothing whatsoever to do with calling citizens irrational because they voted for Amendment 3, and it certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with calling members of the Churches irrational for holding the beliefs that they do with respect to marriage equality.

The Brief seems to me to be more of a public relations document than a legal document. It plays on the fears, defensiveness and moral outrage of the members of the Churches who are encouraged to believe that “renegade” judges are imposing the “homosexual agenda” on the general populace and are destroying “religious freedom.” In other words, it creates bogeymen – and nonsensical ones at that (although I guess a bogeyman could never be "sensical.")

Whose Marriage Is It, Anyway?

"Marriage is the right of the individual. It is not the right of the state."

~ Theodore Olson

On February 4, 2014, the day after Utah filed its opening brief in the Kitchen v Herbert case with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, a hearing was held in a federal district courtroom in Virginia. Oral arguments were heard as to whether or not Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage is constitutional. Ted Olson - who played a pivotal role in arguing the Prop 8 case from federal district court all the way to the Supreme Court - argued on behalf of the plaintiffs.

As I read a transcript of Mr. Olson's argument, I was electrified by these passages that touched on something that had deeply troubled me about Utah's arguments in our own same-sex marriage legal battle:

"[Marriage] is the right of the individual. It is not the right of the state. That is the country that we live in. We have rights as individuals which are fundamental and cannot be taken away." [at p. 6, emphasis added] 

"The State wants to have marriage for people of opposite sexes so that they will channel their sexual activity into the institution of marriage. But there's two points with respect to that. It's not the state's right to impose a restriction on marriage because it wants to accomplish some social objective. The state could decide tomorrow we don't want procreation or we don't care about responsible procreation and change the rules. No because it's an individual right. It goes to the heart of who the individual is, their liberty, spirituality, and so forth" [at p. 9, emphasis added].

What had deeply troubled me about Utah's argument, as reflected in both its (multiple) applications for a stay of Judge Shelby's ruling as well as in its opening brief in support of its appeal of that ruling, is that it is ultimately based on the proposition that it - the State - has a right to promote a particular kind of marriage and family unit and that this right trumps an individual's right to marry.

At the time, I thought, "Do we as citizens exist for the benefit of the state, or does the state exist for the benefit of its citizens?" More to the point, "Does marriage exist for the state, or the state for marriage." Ted Olson's words articulated the response to these questions.

After reading the transcript of the oral arguments, I read the plaintiffs' briefs filed in the Virginia case, in which Olson and his team of lawyers wrote the following (in their second brief) with respect to these issues:

"If marriage exists solely to serve society’s interest, as Defendants argue, it makes no sense to speak of an individual’s right to marry" [at p. 1]. 

"There is only one fundamental “right to marry.” It is a liberty of association that fosters “a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965). It is safeguarded by the Constitution not to promote “causes,” “political faiths,” or “social projects,” but instead “a way of life,” “a harmony in living,” and “a bilateral loyalty.” Id. It is a right to which everyone—including gay men and lesbians—is entitled" [at p. 8].

I then went back and re-visited Judge Shelby's ruling and read the following passages with additional insight:

"[T]he [US Supreme] Court’s decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the Court struck down a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives, established that the right to marry is intertwined with an individual’s right of privacy. The Court observed: 'We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.' 

"In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the [Supreme] Court emphasized the high degree of constitutional protection afforded to an individual’s personal choices about marriage and other intimate decisions: 'These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.'"

There are many legal challenges going on right now in various states across the country. Utah is not alone in basing its argument against marriage equality on not only "states rights" but, more importantly, on a state's right to do precisely what the Supreme Court in Griswold said it could not do - use marriage to promote "causes," "political faiths," and "social projects."

It is ironic that, in a state that is considered to be one of the most conservative in the nation, a state whose citizens typically pride themselves on their staunch defense of personal liberty, Utah's government is insisting that its citizens do not have the right to enjoy "the heart of liberty," a "liberty projected by the Fourteenth Amendment": the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life" without being subject to the "compulsion of the state." 

To Make Her Happy: Of Sealing Rooms, Golden Cages and Closets

"Your job is to make your wife happy."

~ Temple Sealer

We were in the sealing room in the Jordan River Temple.* The sealer was imparting some words of wisdom to my former wife and me. He first told the story of Adam and Eve, about how Eve partook of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, but Adam did not partake. When Eve “confessed” to Adam, he steadfastly refused to partake, citing “Father’s” commandment not to do so. Eve then points out to Adam that if he refuses, she will be cast out and he will be left a “lone man” in the garden of Eden.   

The sealer arrived at his point. Addressing me, he said, “And Adam said, ‘I see that this must be so.’” Gazing intently at me, the sealer continued, “There will be times when you will turn to your wife after she has given you counsel regarding a difficult decision and you will say, ‘I see that this must be so.’” 

Then came the clencher. “Your job,” he said, “is to make your wife happy.”

As far as I recall, the sealer said absolutely nothing to my wife about what she was supposed to do for me. There was, of course, no exchange of vows. No mutual promises to love, honor and cherish, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, in good times and in bad, in the closet or out of the closet. Merely, I was supposed to listen to her counsel and make her happy. That was my role.

The problem is, I took this charge very seriously. If this mandate had been given to another man, say a heterosexual man who was very confident in his sense of self, he might have rolled with it. To me, however, plagued as I was by self-doubt and an inner sense of self-loathing because of my (by then) 15-year-long experience of attraction to people of my own gender, it was a command (not the only one) to offer up all of me upon the altar of marriage. My job was to make her – not me – happy. Only by completely surrendering myself to this marriage could I have any hope of redemption.

Parenthetically, even if I had been heterosexual, however, this assertion that I was responsible for my wife's happiness, played into and turbo-charged very unhealthy thought and behavior patterns that I had brought into my marriage from my own childhood and dysfunctional family of origin, wherein I had experienced role-reversal with both of my parents and had been made responsible for their happiness. It wasn't until years and years into the marriage, however, that I gradually began to understand what was going on.

Meanwhile, over the years, I grew increasingly disturbed by how the Church as an institution and as a culture treated women (and, consequently, men) and how it encouraged men to treat their wives. Put up on a pedestal, in a gilded cage, women were and are treated by the Mormon Patriarchy as "special." Men are the virile protectors and women are the subservient, weaker dependents.

I have frankly been disgusted over the years as I have heard various local church leaders refer to their wives as their “sweethearts,” and publicly fawn over them – as long, that is, as they stayed in their gilded cage. Mormonism makes such a fuss over women and mothers; Mother’s Day was almost unbearable for me, there was always such a gush of saccharine goo.  

Father’s Day, on the other hand, was typically treated almost as an embarrassment by the men who were running the show. Why is that? The most important calling that a man can have on this earth is supposedly that of father … yet fatherhood is never discussed in human terms in priesthood meetings, sacrament meetings, or elsewhere. Rather, the myth of the heroic Mormon father holds sway, and as long as we read our scriptures, say our prayers, don’t look at pornography and pay our tithing, all will be well.

And heaven help the homosexuals, because they cut to the very heart of the Mormon myth of the heroic father. The Mormon patriarchal hierarchy despises homosexuality because homosexuality upsets the patriarchy’s view of itself and the natural order of things. It opens up the male persona to other interpretations that don’t fit neatly within the Mormon box.

Roles (using the term in its psycho-analytical sense), whether in the Church or in families, are not healthy. We are each here to fulfill the measure of our own creation, not fulfill a role that someone else assigns to us. And we are, ultimately, each responsible for our own happiness - not someone else's.

*This post was originally published on one of my former blogs (now closed) in August 2012. My mind turned toward it as I was reading Utah's arguments against marriage equality and the roles that the State (as an agent of LDS teachings on the family) seeks to assign to men and women.