If I Can Save One Young Man

I was kneeling in my bedroom in my brother’s house in Slidell, Louisiana. It was the spring of 1983. I was 24 years old. I had just joined the Mormon Church.

For at least 12 years, I had known that I was physically attracted to boys and, later, men. This had been a well-kept secret. Though I think it could be said that I had fallen in love with a boy during my senior year of high school, those feelings were never shared with him, nor were any of those feelings ever expressed sexually. Not even a kiss.

As an aside, I have written before about that one-sided relationship with that boy, and I used the term “puppy love” in doing so. A very wise man pointed out to me that those feelings I had were genuine and I should not disparage them with such terms as "puppy love." I appreciated that comment, and it reminded me (i) why I never learned much about romantic love as a teenager or young adult and (ii) that I need to consciously validate now the boy and young man I once was and remove the layers of shame that shrouded much of my youth.

Like I suppose many of the boys of my generation did, I assumed when I was a teenager that these feelings would eventually go away. I told myself that I had these feelings because of a series of events that coincided when I was 12 or so. My parents’ separation and subsequent divorce. Puberty. A somewhat distant father. An overbearing mother. A traumatic event involving an older man in town who preyed upon me that left a deep emotional and psychological scar.

I don’t think I ever, ever allowed myself to consider that I was “born that way.” That concept just wasn’t on my radar screen.

When I was introduced to Mormonism, the thing about the religion that appealed the most to me was the doctrine that it was absolute truth. Absolute. In the context of my homosexuality, all the questions and confusion that had surrounded my feelings were removed. I had been misled by the world. I could overcome these feelings through the Plan of Happiness provided by the Mormon Church - marriage, children, church, family.

Which brings me back to me kneeling beside my bed. I prayed in gratitude that I had found THE way and that I now knew the “truth” about homosexuality. I recall writing in my journal shortly after my baptism that if I could save one young man from the errors of the world, i.e., in believing that homosexuality was okay, then all that I had been through the previous 12 years would be worth it. 

Obviously, I was very wrong.

Fast forward to today. My teenage son has recently told me something of the struggles some of his male friends have faced in a heavily Mormon suburb of Salt Lake City. My son is a valiant and courageous defender of gay rights and of gay boys who are teased and bullied by other kids (and I am immensely proud of him). It distressed me to hear of the confusion, the sadness, the wondering, the bleakness that some of those in his circle of acquaintances have faced as they have tried to come to grips with their sexuality.

These conversations with my son, as well as a post I recently read on the blog No More Strangers, inspired me to write this post. Andy's Story is an account written by a young Mormon man of how he came to terms with the fact that he is gay. One of the things that impressed me about that account was Andy's description of how helpful he had found gay Mormon blogs during his process of self-discovery.

I hadn't thought for years about that passage I wrote in my journal when I was 24 and just beginning my 28-year experience with Mormonism. When it came into my head a couple of days ago, I decided I'd like to turn those words on their head. If I can somehow help even one young man to deal in a positive way with his homosexuality, if I can help him see that his absolute truth is that he is gay and was born that way - in spite of strong currents of shame that would carry him away from his truth – then I will feel that some of the pain I have experienced in my life will be transmuted into peace.

With Andy's words in my mind, I have decided - in addition to my contemporary writing - to re-publish, from time to time, posts that were originally published on my first Invictus Pilgrim blog during the months following my coming out. I will do so in the hopes that perhaps someone like Andy might discover them and that they may help at least one young gay Mormon man on his journey.

It's About Who We Love

When I came out to my four youngest children over 1-1/2 years ago, I explained that most of the time, men fall in love with women and women fall in love with men. Sometimes, however, men fall in love with other men, and women fall in love with other women. 

I went on to explain that Mark and I are in love with each other, and that sometimes men who love other men are called "gay."  It isn't "wrong," it isn't "weird," it's just different, and a lot of people don't understand it.  Some people, I explained, even think it's wrong or bad - even some people in our own family.  But those people just don't understand.

I could also have added that sometimes when people don’t understand something, they are afraid of it. And sometimes people who should know better prey on that fear and lack of understanding in others to advance their own purposes.

We’ve seen a lot of that going on in Utah of late. There are a lot of people in this state, just like in other states and regions of the country, that have “evolved” on issues relating to homosexuality. They no longer believe that it is a “choice.” And this evolution is crucial, because once people understand that gay people truly are “born this way,” a lot of the other stereotypes, prejudices and just plain ignorant beliefs fall by the wayside. I applaud such persons.

But there are still a lot of people who don’t understand gay people. At all. These people have a fundamentally different view of the reality of gay people than do gay people. Somehow, we have to continue to try to bridge that gap.

It’s about who we love. Most men fall in love with other women. But some fall in love with other men. It’s that simple.

And it is real love. Last Valentine’s Day, I wrote a blog post about what it felt like to me to truly fall in love for the first time in my life after having been married to my former wife for over 20 years. I expressed some of my thoughts and emotions at that time in a journal I would someday give my daughter:

“It was only recently that I discovered what it felt like to be in love, what it felt like to fall in love. And it was and is truly wonderful. Every person should have the opportunity to feel those feelings … to be able to ‘get it’ when they listen to a love song on the radio … to feel the excitement that comes from hearing a beloved’s voice, of merely being in the same room together. Everyone should have the opportunity to experience what it feels like to hold one’s beloved, to experience the emotional, physical and spiritual pleasure that comes from being intimate with one’s beloved … 

“Love is really, in a sense, the essence of what it means to be human … and I have traveled over 50 years to find the exhilarating, revelatory, fulfilling, wonder-ful love that I have found with Mark …”

If Utahns who are happily married in traditional marriages had to face the prospect of their government telling them that their relationship is invalid and could not be legally recognized, I think perhaps there might be greater understanding of what it means to gay Utahns to be treated the way they are by the State of Utah.

This is why I found this concluding paragraph of Judge Robert Shelby’s ruling so powerful and meaningful:

"Rather than protecting or supporting the families of opposite-sex couples, Amendment 3 perpetuates inequality by holding that the families and relationships of same-sex couples are not now, nor ever will be, worthy of recognition ... [T]he Constitution protects the Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights, which include the right to marry and the right to have that marriage recognized by their government. These rights would be meaningless if the Constitution did not also prevent the government from interfering with the intensely personal choices an individual makes when that person decides to make a solemn commitment to another human being. The Constitution therefore protects the choice of one’s partner for all citizens, regardless of their sexual identity [emphasis added]."

It really is about who we love.

"People Can't Eat the Constitution": FDR, 1936 and Today

I've been reading a biography of Franklin Delano Roosevelt* which I started shortly after visiting his memorial in Washington, D.C. on Veteran's Day this past November (which I wrote about here). It's a long book, over 800 pages, and I'm a little over half-way through.

I have just read about the 1936 election and was amazed at how some of the rhetoric of that election - almost 80 years ago - mirrors conditions today. FDR is running for a second term, and his Republican opponent is Alf Landon of Kansas. The New Deal has been chugging along, transforming America, and the capitalists are starting to get really concerned.

I was frankly very surprised at how statements made in that election year - almost 80 years ago - by Roosevelt, Landon and others mirror conditions of today. 

As the nomination process played out, William Borah, long-time Republican senator from Idaho, made this statement: "Unless the Republican party is delivered from its reactionary leadership and reorganized in accord with its one-time liberal principles, it will die like the Whig party, of sheer political cowardice." (Sound familiar?)

The people were demanding change and the Republican party wasn't giving it to them. "They are offered the Constitution," said Borah. "But the people can't eat the Constitution." (Reminds me of how many so-called conservative reactionaries like to claim that they are self-appointed guardians of the Constitution.)

Alf Landon, the eventual Republican nominee, recognized that the days of Herbert Hoover's conservatism were over: "I do not believe the Jeffersonian theory that the best government is the one that governs the least can be applied today. [Keep in mind he was speaking almost 80 years ago.] I think that as civilization becomes more complex, government power must increase."

Compare that statement to statements by today's conservative talking heads, in and out of Congress, who frighten people into believing that the federal government has run amuck and must be drastically reduced in size.

Roosevelt was in top form that year and very combative. He admitted that he had made some mistakes in his first administration, but, he said:

"[T]he immortal Dante tells us that divine justice weights the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted in different scales. Better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. There is a mysterious cycle in human events. To some generations much is given. Of other generations much is expected. This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny."

Roosevelt carried all but two states that year, winning 523 electoral votes to Landon's 8.

Interesting.

* Traitor to His Class: The Privileged Life and Radical Presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, by H. W. Brands.

Thank You, Judge Shelby

Not for the first time this weekend, I cried last night at the sheer wonder of what has happened in Utah since Friday. 

Like hundreds of thousands of other gay men, I grew up in a time when a realization that one was gay - that one was queer, a homo, a faggot - was in most cases a death knell to the blossoming of one's individuality, one's personhood. This mental illness - for such it was considered until 1973 - was to be suppressed at all costs. 

One learned to hate oneself. Growing up in a religious environment, one also learned that, while others merited God's love, I - and others like me - did not. No matter how hard one tried to believe otherwise, the tides of self-hatred were too strong. Repress. Suppress. Carry on. 

Perhaps there would be some way to redeem myself. I thought I had found the path out of "homo hell" when I converted to the Mormon faith as a young man and embarked upon the "way of happiness." I married. I raised children. I loved to the best of my ability. But as the song, "Blessing" states, every day a bit of me died. I could not redeem what could not be redeemed. Nor, as it turned out, could God ... because even He cannot redeem what needs no redemption.

A little over three years ago, I came out of the closet amidst the death throws of my marriage. Two years ago, I met a man with whom I fell deeply in love. Today, I share my life and my family with him. We had a commitment ceremony in August and plan to marry in the spring.

But with all that has happened this past three years, with all the growth I have experienced, with all the self-hatred that has been rooted out and replaced with the seeds of self-love, I wasn't prepared for what has happened these past few days. For the first time in my life, a federal court in my own jurisdiction has ruled, in essence, that who I am as a gay man is inherently part of who I am and that I have rights - as a gay man - that are worthy of protection by the government of the United States of America.

I wonder, Judge Shelby, if you realize what your ruling really means to me and to people like me. Yes, we can now marry our loved one in our own state. But your ruling goes far beyond marriage. It fundamentally affirms who I am as a gay citizen of my country, my state and my community. And for that, I am grateful beyond words to express.

Thank you, Judge Shelby. Merry Christmas.

"Rather than protecting or supporting the families of opposite-sex couples, Amendment 3 perpetuates inequality by holding that the families and relationships of same-sex couples are not now, nor ever will be, worthy of recognition ... [T]he Constitution protects the Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights, which include the right to marry and the right to have that marriage recognized by their government. These rights would be meaningless if the Constitution did not also prevent the government from interfering with the intensely personal choices an individual makes when that person decides to make a solemn commitment to another human being. The Constitution therefore protects the choice of one’s partner for all citizens, regardless of their sexual identity."

What One Utah Family with Same-Sex Parents Looks Like

Saturday was one of the happiest days of my life.* Six of my children were staying with us, and we were joined in the afternoon by my daughter Hannah, her husband Cary and their daughter, Nutella (that's what Mark and I call her). We had fun watching Nutella toddle around. We sat and chatted. We ate dinner. The kids played ping pong. Everyone was happy. Everyone was enjoying themselves. And as a father, this was the sort of evening that I had dreamt about. It was a beautiful day, a beautiful evening. 

I chose the title of this post cognizant of what is happening in Utah right now. As I wrote in my post on Saturday: "We are a family. My partner, Mark, and I love each other. We, together, love our children, who are legally "mine" and my former wife's, but are also morally Mark's. Why? Because he loves them and they love him."

We are a family.

* The lead photograph was taken by dav.d photography. The other pictures were taken by my very talented daughter, Rachel, pictured above on the left with her sister, Hannah.

Utah Will Never Be the Same

On Friday, the state government and the Mormon Church hierarchy lost control. 

Utah will never be the same as it was Friday morning. i.e., before (federal) Judge Robert Shelby's ruling that Utah's Amendment 3 (banning same-sex marriage) is unconstitutional. 

Totally apart from what this ruling means to gay Utahns and their families, I think this decision, in ways which cannot be fully known at this point, is probably the most momentous one involving control of the state of Utah since the last years of polygamy when federal judges came in to assert federal authority over a recalcitrant Mormon-controlled state government. 

In a sweeping ruling that I must imagine took by surprise the powers that be in this state, the complacent, smug world in which those powers operate - secure in the knowledge that they are in control - was suddenly upended. 

News reports this morning quote Governor Gary Herbert as saying that the situation (with the county clerks who issue marriage licenses) is "chaotic." In other words, he has lost control of the situation. And a perhaps titanic struggle is shaping up between the Utah state government and (via the federal judiciary) the federal government, the likes of which this state has not seen since the days of polygamy. 

The state requested an emergency stay* over the weekend of Judge Shelby's ruling. Judge Shelby declined, saying he would hear arguments tomorrow as to whether a stay is appropriate. The state also went over his head to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals,** asking it to issue a stay if Judge Shelby does not submit to the state's demands for an immediate stay. (Which, it seems to me, is hardly likely considering the same judge issued an order two days ago that "enjoins the State from enforcing Sections 30-1-2 and 30-1-4.1 of the Utah Code and Article I, § 29 of the Utah Constitution to the extent these laws prohibit a person from marrying another person of the same sex.") 

The hierarchy - both political and religious - has lost control. 

For the hundreds of thousands of Utahns who are not part of the dominant religious environment in this state (or who may be, but whose progressive views are frowned upon within their community), these events are tremendously affirming. A federal judge has provided affirmation not only to LGBT Utahns, but to ALL Utahns who feel disenfranchised and disconnected from their state government because they are a minority. 

Utah will never be the same again.

(*A stay temporarily suspends the effect of a ruling.)

(**All federal courts in the country are organized within districts. Utah is part of the 10th district, the headquarters of which are in Denver.)

Dignity: Marriage Equality Comes to Utah

On this snowy morning, six of my children are either still sleeping in their bedrooms in our home or are already downstairs watching television.* Christmas music is playing in the background. My 19-year-old daughter is in the kitchen making waffles. Mark is sitting next to me, writing in his journal. Others of my children are not currently here, but will be on Monday as nine of the children, my son-in-law and my granddaughter sit down to dinner with Mark and me.

We are a family. My partner, Mark, and I love each other. We, together, love our children, who are legally "mine" and my former wife's, but are also morally Mark's. Why? Because he loves them and they love him.

Gradually, over the past three years, I have come to feel more confident about being open about my sexual identity, about who I am. And during the past two years, I have come to the point that I no longer hesitate to publicly refer to Mark as my partner, e.g., when I'm in stores, restaurants, etc. I have grown more comfortable in quietly asserting and carrying my dignity as a gay man in a committed relationship.

But today, I feel different. In my home state, a federal judge has just ruled that our family, and Mark and I's relationship, is legally entitled to the same dignity and respect as those of heterosexual couples. Today, I feel validated as a gay man in my own community. I feel that, as it has so many times in American history, the federal judiciary has stepped in to confront a state that seeks to deny its citizens the rights that are their due. That a power greater than ignorance, bigotry and religious-based intolerance has stepped in to right what was wrong. 

And I'm grateful.

* Photo by Katrina Barker Anderson Photography

****************

Here are some quotes from Judge Robert Shelby's ruling that resonated with me:

“[T]he legal issues presented in this lawsuit do not depend on whether Utah’s laws were the result of its legislature or a referendum, or whether the laws passed by the widest or smallest of margins. The question presented here depends instead on the Constitution itself …”

"The Constitution guarantees that all citizens have certain fundamental rights. These rights vest in every person over whom the Constitution has authority and, because they are so important, an individual’s fundamental rights 'may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.' W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943) ..." 

“A person’s choices about marriage implicate the heart of the right to liberty that is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment … The effect of Amendment 3 is therefore that it denies gay and lesbian citizens of Utah the ability to exercise one of their constitutionally protected rights. The State’s prohibition of the Plaintiffs’ right to choose a same-sex marriage partner renders their fundamental right to marry as meaningless as if the State recognized the Plaintiffs’ right to bear arms but not their right to buy bullets ...”

“[H]owever persuasive the ability to procreate might be in the context of a particular religious perspective, it is not a defining characteristic of conjugal relationships from a legal and constitutional point of view. The State’s position demeans the dignity not just of same-sex couples, but of the many opposite- sex couples who are unable to reproduce or who choose not to have children ...”

“Both same-sex and opposite-sex marriage are therefore simply manifestations of one right—the right to marry—applied to people with different sexual identities. While it was assumed until recently that a person could only share an intimate emotional bond and develop a family with a person of the opposite sex, the realization that this assumption is false does not change the underlying right. It merely changes the result when the court applies that right to the facts before it. Applying that right to these Plaintiffs, the court finds that the Constitution protects their right to marry a person of the same sex to the same degree that the Constitution protects the right of heterosexual individuals to marry a person of the opposite sex ...”

“CONCLUSION

"In 1966, attorneys for the State of Virginia made the following arguments to the Supreme Court in support of Virginia’s law prohibiting interracial marriage: (1) “The Virginia statutes here under attack reflects [sic] a policy which has obtained in this Commonwealth for over two centuries and which still obtains in seventeen states”; (2) “Inasmuch as we have already noted the higher rate of divorce among the intermarried, is it not proper to ask, ‘Shall we then add to the number of children who become the victims of their intermarried parents?’”; (3) “[I]ntermarriage constitutes a threat to society”; and (4) “[U]nder the Constitution the regulation and control of marital and family relationships are reserved to the States.” Brief for Respondents at 47-52, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), 1967 WL 113931. These contentions are almost identical to the assertions made by the State of Utah in support of Utah’s laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. For the reasons discussed above, the court finds these arguments as unpersuasive as the Supreme Court found them fifty years ago. Anti-miscegenation laws in Virginia and elsewhere were designed to, and did, deprive a targeted minority of the full measure of human dignity and liberty by denying them the freedom to marry the partner of their choice. Utah’s Amendment 3 achieves the same result.

“Rather than protecting or supporting the families of opposite-sex couples, Amendment 3 perpetuates inequality by holding that the families and relationships of same-sex couples are not now, nor ever will be, worthy of recognition. Amendment 3 does not thereby elevate the status of opposite-sex marriage; it merely demeans the dignity of same-sex couples. And while the State cites an interest in protecting traditional marriage, it protects that interest by denying one of the most traditional aspects of marriage to thousands of its citizens: the right to form a family that is strengthened by a partnership based on love, intimacy, and shared responsibilities. The Plaintiffs’ desire to publicly declare their vows of commitment and support to each other is a testament to the strength of marriage in society, not a sign that, by opening its doors to all individuals, it is in danger of collapse.

“The State of Utah has provided no evidence that opposite-sex marriage will be affected in any way by same-sex marriage. In the absence of such evidence, the State’s unsupported fears and speculations are insufficient to justify the State’s refusal to dignify the family relationships of its gay and lesbian citizens. Moreover, the Constitution protects the Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights, which include the right to marry and the right to have that marriage recognized by their government. These rights would be meaningless if the Constitution did not also prevent the government from interfering with the intensely personal choices an individual makes when that person decides to make a solemn commitment to another human being. The Constitution therefore protects the choice of one’s partner for all citizens, regardless of their sexual identity.”