Dan posted about microaggressions and discussed how they not only apply to race but to other people including gays and lesbians. The concept of microaggressions is new to me but has caused me to think a lot about how I talk about other people. In a previous post of my own I mentioned microaggressions directed to gays and lesbians from members of the LDS Church — high up members of the LDS Church. As expected, I was met with disagreement, so I’d like to open up the conversation. Please feel free to express your opinions openly.
To help shape the conversation a little, watch this interview on Anderson Cooper’s show. He talks to Franchesca Ramsey, the mastermind behind the Shit White Girls Say to Black Girls video (go to Dan’s page linked above to watch the video or look them up on YouTube). They address a lot of important topics and share a lot of important feelings that shape how I view microaggressions.
Now consider this example from the microaggressions.com website:
ONE OF MY COWORKERS IS MESSING WITH ANOTHER COWORKER BY “ACCUSING” HER OF BEING GAY. She’s furious with him. Meanwhile, I’m sitting there, being gay.
During my shift at a customer service job. Made me annoyed, depressed.
One of the microaggressions I referenced in my previous post was “we’re not anti-gay; we’re pro-family”. Does this fall into the scope of microaggressions? Why or why not?
Humanity can learn a lot from the animal world. After all, animals can’t be tempted by the devil; they’re pure. They also can’t speak so we know there’s no way nurture could ever change how nature nurtured them. I personally have learned a lot from penguins. They’re so cute.
It’s a known fact that penguin chicks are best raised in a male-female rockhold. It’s important for boy penguins to be raised by a father so they have an appropriate masculine role model. It’s also important for girl penguins to have a mommy to show them how to cook, clean, and raise other penguins. If they came from, say, a female-only rockhold, how would more penguins be born? If they came from a male-only rockhold, who would teach penguins to be kind and gentle? My world came crashing down today. I’ve lost hope in the animal world. I just learned boy penguins sometimes rock-up with other boy penguins. I thought it was only a Parks and Recreation joke but apparently it’s legit. Some penguins are gay! And it’s not just a few penguins here and there. They’re everywhere! And they’re pairing off. I blame the prolific gay agenda. Gay penguins must be infiltrating penguin schools and nurseries. And now I just learned that penguins aren’t the only animals with gay tendencies. Apparently homosexual activity has been documented in dolphins, bison, apes, elephants, giraffes, monkeys, lions, sheep, hyenas, lizards, dragonflies, fruit flies, bed bugs, swans, gulls, vultures, and pigeons. Unreal. Well, that’s what Wikipedia says. I’m not so sure I can trust it hasn’t been infiltrated by the gay agenda.
Two boy ducks kissing (picture from Wikipedia)
Turns out, there’s a lot I don’t understand about penguins, specifically straight penguins. I thought they were nature’s pride and joy, perfect and untouchable. They get penguin married, make penguin babies, and live the March of the Penguin life. I just found out there’s this one zoo where a straight penguin couple kicked an egg from their rockhold. Now I’m really conflicted because a pair of gay penguins adopted the chick and are raising it better than the straight couple. Well, the straight couple gave the chick up before it hatched so I guess we’ll never know who would have raised it better. Maybe they weren’t planning on having another chick until the following year; who knows. Watch and learn.
Matthew Brown published a video on Vimeo.com last week (on Valentine’s day) to communicate a powerful message about acceptance of gays and lesbians by society. I thought re-posting the video would be a good way to communicate a similar message in my own words but Brown pulled the video down; the video was meant for his partner’s eyes only. This blogger quoted Brown from the video summary:
This is the Valentine’s Day video by me for my partner, XXXXXXX XXXXX. My partner lives somewhere across the Atlantic. He lives a hidden life because of the way his career, some of his friends, and family might treat him if they found out about him being gay. I’ve made this video for him to show the support and passion toward my Love and human rights. It was supposed to be a private video, solely for my boyfriend’s eyes, but it turned into a statement of fighting for the one you love when I realized I wouldn’t be able to say his name or show his face in the video. XXXXXXX, Happy Valentine’s Day! Someday society will let us feel fully accepted!
A clip from the video To my pixelated boyfriend on Vimeo as posted by storyful.com
I can identify with their experience. Worrying about how people might respond if they find out about our relationship, Dan and I have kept it hidden. Because of things people at one of my job sites say about gays and lesbians, I don’t mention anything about my relationship status. They probably see me as the boring single guy with two cats who sits at home on the weekends. Not being out at this job creates some awkward discussions. A co-worker asked me what my plans were for Valentine’s day. I mentioned I’d be going to dinner at a nice restaurant, and he gave me pointers on how I could impress my (female) date.
While out on Valentine’s day we got plenty of stares. It’s not a common experience in small-town Logan to see two guys sitting together at dinner, apparently. It ruined a portion of the romance to be stared at and whispered about. I guess I understand what zoo animals feel like: you’re constantly on display, every little move. Sometimes we joke about reversing the roles and comment privately on how disgusting it is when straight people hold hands and/or kiss in public.
It’s surprising what people don’t think we see. While driving to campus one day a car full of family pointed and stared while we were stopped at the stoplight. The husband noticed us first (I had my hand on Dan’s shoulder/neck), who then pointed us out to his wife, who then leaned forward to get a good look at the freaky gays, who then pointed us out to her children in the back seat, who then proceeded to stare. They acted surprised when I waved at them. If nothing else, we’ve learned that a sense of humor goes a long way.
When I dropped Dan off on campus, we swapped pecks on the cheek and said goodbye. A passerby noticed and looked back over his shoulder until he disappeared behind the cars and buses. Or there was the time we walked hand-in-hand through a parking lot passing people emptying contents of bags in their backseats and trunks. As we passed, they froze, lowered their voices to a whisper, pointed us out to friends, and snuck secret glances.
Then there are the people who don’t bat an eye; the people who treat us as human. They are the strangers who say hi, wave, smile, and strike up conversation. And there are the strangers who go out of their way to say something nice. We went to Las Vegas on New Years last year. A guy about our age walked up to us as we were watching the fountains at the Bellagio and said, “I just want you guys to know you’re beautiful just the way you are.” It didn’t come across as creepy–it meant a lot to us at the time. They are the people who pause to tell us we look happy as a photographer snaps photos of us (also a true story). They are the people we meet hiking. They are the co-workers (at job sites where we are out) who invite us to social events or ask about our weekend plans. They are former roommates who come over to play video games or go out of their way to make sure we feel comfortable. They are former mission companions and friends who don’t distance themselves. They are the family members who go to lunch with us or invite us over for dinner. They are the extended family members who go out of their way at weddings and other family gatherings to meet Dan and ask about our plans for the future. To them we offer thanks and appreciation.
My intent with this post is not to complain. I hope the juxtaposition of good and bad experiences raises an important question to readers: What would you do? How would you react if you saw a gay couple at dinner on Valentine’s day? Would you keep to yourself, smile, stare, point, talk about them, talk to them?
The Huffington Post ran an article a while back about trending prejudice on Twitter. Twitter user @LGBTfacts posted some pretty insane tweets with the hash tag #LGBTfacts. Warning: some of the tweets are pretty foul so search at your own risk.
Few in the LGBT community took offense and instead turned the tweets around and made them humorous. Here are some examples:
It’s surprising how humor deflates potentially explosive situations. Good job gweeters (gay tweeters)!
Reading a recent article caused me to reflect on a memory buried deep in my childhood that caused a few doubts or concerns about Mormonism: what am I supposed to think regarding “gender [as] an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose” (Family: A Proclamation to the World) when more than two sexes exist? At the time, I wasn’t too familiar with intersexism (atypical combinations of physical features that usually distinguish female from male) but was remotely aware that things aren’t always clear. I shared this doubt with someone who explained to me that the prophets and apostles of our church have said it is impossible for a male spirit to be born into a female body (and vice versa)–God would never allow/do that to someone. It explained nothing about people who feel they are born the wrong gender and it didn’t explain how intersex individuals fit into God’s plan.
The plan of salvation according to LDS theology
Here’s the article I read. It’s a really good read and raised important questions about gender and theology within the LDS Church. Eternal Gender?
Georege Romney, father of Mitt Romney, received a letter from Delbert L. Stapley (of the Council of the Twelve for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) in 1964 encouraging Romney to reconsider his views on civil rights. The letter was pretty devastating to my opinion of Mormon-influence politics. It’s hard for me not to feel betrayed; why were these issues never brought up and discussed in Sunday school?
George Romney supported Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. according to this site. He marched in parades and participated in demonstrations. He sent representatives to speak with Dr. King. What made the difference for Romney (when compared to other Mormons)? “…I got to know Negroes and…I began to recognize that some Negroes are better and more capable than lots of whites” he reportedly said. But that’s not what his church would have him believe. According to Stapley (who wrote on official church letterhead), “people are happier when placed in the environment and association of like interests, racial instincts, habit, and natural groupings” and “the Negro is entitled to considerations…but not full social benefits nor inter-marriage privileges with the Whites, nor should the Whites be forced to accept them into restricted White areas”.
George Romney, civil rights march
This is really no different than what the LDS Church teaches and encourages today about my civil rights — the rights of gays and lesbians. Their argument could be rephrased to something like this (not an actual quote), “homosexuals are entitled to considerations…but not full social benefits nor marriage privileges…” And perhaps Mitt Romney is being encouraged by the Church to stand fast on the anti-gay platform. Let’s hope Mitt follows in his dad’s footsteps and stands independent of his church on issues of civil rights and liberties.
Some continuously argue religious freedom is on the decline in America and cite discrimination cases against same-sex couples as their major support. Reading such arguments causes me to ask how they would define religious freedom. Freedom to obey “the laws of the land”? Freedom from religious persecution? Freedom from being teased about your religion?
Someone recently submitted an article to my school newspaper (The Statesman) and seemed to think religious freedom means if someone teases you for being Mormon, let’s say, they have breached your religious freedom. She pontificated about pessimism towards Mormons due to their bizarre culture. She discussed a few stereotypes of Mormons and suggested they are not accurate or should be overlooked because every group of similar people establish some form of culture that seems bizarre to outsiders. And then she says: “Those who are devout members of minority religions in Utah, or are atheist, should still feel it imperative to uphold the Constitution by respecting their neighbor’s freedom of religion, even though the concentrated LDS religion may feel overbearing.”
I’m confused. How is any of this related to religious freedom?
The Supreme Court defined religious freedom as the freedom to get around laws. For example, the Americans with Disabilities Act. Does one of your employees have a disability (e.g., narcolepsy)? Fire her; it’s within your religious freedom to do so. This may seem like a stretch, but it actually happened. The Huffington Post reported:
[Perich] got sick in 2004, then tried to return to work from disability leave despite being diagnosed with narcolepsy. The school said she couldn’t return because they had hired a substitute for that year. They fired her and removed her from the church ministry after she showed up at the school and threatened to sue to get her job back.
About this case, another Huffington Post author said:
The Supreme Court broadened all religious organizations’ rights to discriminate, saying that both the Establishment Clause (you know — the one that says government can’t establish a religion, despite what some people like to claim during election years) and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment prohibit any limitations on a church’s right to select its own ministers. That means churches can discriminate based on race, age, sex, disability, national origin — you name it — when it comes to ministers.
That’s right. The church didn’t have to have a religious reason to fire her under this new ruling, and that’s what I find to be the scary part. It’s one thing if the church says it fired someone because they broke some religious rule or for some religious reason. But the Supreme Court says they can actively discriminate and give the discrimination as a reason, and still get away with it. Church elders don’t like ministers in wheelchairs? You’re gone. Pregnant ministers? Fugeddaboutit. History of Parkinson’s in the minister’s family? You’re fired.
So, will churches be forced to hire gays and lesbians? No. Can a church (legally) fire someone because of their sexual orientation? Yep. At this rate, Dallin H. Oaks of the LDS (Mormon) Church may get his wish one day. He might just earn the right to withhold public goods and services from anyone he or his church do not like. Yay for religious freedom!
Sons of Perdition is a documentary about polygamy in the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that follows three boys who leave “The Crick” (or Short Creek) and highlights the challenges they face trying to adapt and survive in the real world. I watched the documentary when it played at the Logan Art Cinema in January 2012 and participated in the question and answer session with the directors Tyler Measom and Jennilynn Merten.
During the question and answer session I asked how accurate HBO’s Big Love portrays polygamy as they (Tyler and Jennilynn) perceive polygamy. They said Big Love is actually pretty accurate (other than extreme dramatization). For example, the legal arm of the FLDS church is the United Effort Plan (UEP) and is called the United Effort Brotherhood (UEB) in Big Love. Big Love also captures the schism and conflict between different sects of polygamist churches.
Bill Henrickson's wives on Big Love (HBO)
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Sons of Perdition is how well the characters’ experiences align with the experiences of post Mormons. In fact, the directors commented on this aspect of the film. Both Tyler and Jennilynn grew up in the mainstream LDS Church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) and later left the Church. They felt they could identify with the kids in the documentary because they themselves felt ostracized and even exiled by their families and members of their faith. Tyler explains in his own words.
One challenge mainstream Mormons face (and probably FLDS Mormons as well) is difference of belief and religious opinion within a marriage. I really like what this couple had to say about their experience and how their experience parallels experiences discussed in the documentary. I like the hope these videos communicate: despite a crisis of faith, you can survive and so can your relationships with people you love no matter which side of the faith divide they stand on.