(Jon Stewart) and I just want one thing

Something else I’ve learned with all the hubbub around marriage equality: we’re all just looking for information that confirms what we already “know” (i.e., believe), and we rarely engage in discussion in a way that supports learning or discovery of new information. In other words, we’re all just trying to make a point, and we need the most believable stuff out there to win: statistics and an abstract from a research article.

I’ll illustrate by referring to the infamous Regnerus study. If you believe marriage should be between one man and one woman, you might grab onto the study and say something like “research shows that children raised by gay couples aren’t as well-adjusted as children raised by a mom and a day” without having first read the study.

Or you might rely on a summary of the research from a secondhand source like Fox News.

Or a friend.

In short, few of us do our own reading and thinking, and even fewer of us think critically about how people come to the conclusions they come to. We accept it on authority. And I’ll admit — I do it too. Jon Stewart is my go too source for accurate, factual information.

And this becomes problematic when it comes to important topics like marriage equality and human rights. It almost always becomes a game of he said she said. Or rather Jon Stewart said Bill O’Reilly said.

I’m not really sure how the discussion should happen. It seems like asking questions and having a dialogue should be enough, but that always comes across as challenging the source of authority. And this is problematic when the authority is God, a prophet of God, or Jon Stewart. You can’t challenge them. They’re smart, educated people. 

Here’s another problem. It’s easy for me when people challenge Jon Stewart. He’s just a dude with a talk show. It’s probably not as easy for other people when God is challenged. He’s THE dude that knows it all. And when research doesn’t confirm (or deny) the message he trying to send through his messengers, it kinda plays with you.

That’s what I love about our country. It was set up so we won’t have to have these conversations. It was set up so you can go to church on Sunday and I can watch Jon Stewart four nights of the week. You can believe I’m going to hell for marrying a dude, and I can believe you’re wrong. I can believe I’m happy, and you can believe only straight families are happy. I’m okay with that.

So I’ll conclude with one point.

And state what I want (and it’s not an attack on your God or your religion) regardless of what research or religion says: equality.

How do you respond to people you disagree with? (Proposition 8, DOMA)

Two court cases related to marriage equality were heard this week (Proposition 8 and DOMA) and left behind good and bad discussion: discussion that brought people together and discussion that further divided. At least that’s how it has been for me. I have family and friends in Utah where the majority of people are against marriage equality. And I have co-workers and friends here in Maryland where the majority of people are in favor of marriage equality (and if they’re not in favor of marriage equality they are at least willing to share in my happiness).  This means my news feed on Facebook has been full of all different types of political discussion, which raised questions for me:

How do you respond to people you disagree with? Do you try to see their point of view? Do you try to get them to see your point of view? Do you try to convince them your point of view is good?

I’d like to believe good people can be convinced to do things by people in authority even when the things they do hurt others. So part of me thinks it’s worth a shot to convince them of my point of view. Something like, “Hey, when your leaders tell you to put money into campaigns like Yes on 8, Protect Marriage, or Preserve Marriage, (or to otherwise speak out against marriage equality) you’re sending the message to me that you think it’s fair Dan and I pay more in taxes (somewhere around $3000 per year) and health care than we would if one of us were female.” But that doesn’t really seem to help.

“The Milgram experiment on obedience to authority figures was a series of social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram, which measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience.” Wikipedia

And then I stop and think, “Hey, maybe I’m being selfish. Maybe I need to stop and think about them and their point of view.” Well, I used to be one of them and so I did think like them. What ultimately changed my opinion on the topic of marriage equality was understanding that I could maintain my system of beliefs while others enjoyed legal benefits. This doesn’t seem to help as much as it should though. I can’t do the thinking for them. They’ve got to do the thinking, learning, and stretching outside of their comfort zone, which typically involves going against authority — and that just ain’t gonna happen.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not allow their buildings to be used for political events, does not use their pulpit for political messages, and never uses their member lists of politics. EVER. Unless it’s a moral issue…

And then I remember what happened when I tried to engage people in discussions about Proposition 8 back in 2008: lots of feuds, divisions, he said she saids, and “unfriending”. So maybe I shouldn’t speak up.

And then I remember what happens when people don’t speak up: absolutely nothing. I want something to happen. I don’t want to be held to the standards of others when it comes to the legal rights I should enjoy. I don’t want your religious beliefs to dictate what my employer’s insurance company charges me for health insurance nor how much my government taxes me (to name a few things). And I actually think it’s what you (those who disagree with marriage equality) want too: freedom from the religious beliefs and practices of others and government recognition of the marriage your [insert religious person here] performed.

“A right delayed is a right denied” Martin Luther King, Jr.

And that leads into something I find interesting. A lot of religious people have been saying the solution to the marriage equality problem is for government to step out of marriage. That would essentially place them in the same position I’m in: if the government doesn’t recognize a legal union or contract between two people then the union doesn’t exist, and this means no one can recognize your union (because it doesn’t exist). So… if y’all are really for government stepping out of marriage, I just want to make sure you’re okay with paying more in taxes and health insurance, or not having visitation rights at the hospital. This would look something like you going to the hospital to visit your wife and the hospital saying, “Oh, we don’t recognize [insert religion] marriages. You’ll need to provide legal documentation of your union.” And then you’ll walk away or present a legal document you paid a lawyer $3000 to $4000 to write up for you. Is that really what you want? Or let’s say you want to marry that latina girl you met while serving as a missionary and live in the U.S. You can’t do it if the government won’t recognize your religious union.

And just because it’s a cat that looks almost as handsome as Mishaand he’s in a bag and the bag is an HRC bag…

See the resemblance? Here’s Misha with his pride beads on.

So how do we have this conversation about the things that matter most to us in a way that’s productive?

Shane Bitney Crone on YouTube for #EqualLoveEqualRights

This is a really cool video so I thought I’d share. Enjoy.

I felt powerless and hopeless

I stumbled across this video the other day. I don’t agree with it. At all. But I’d like to share it in juxtaposition to another video to illustrate a point. Here’s the first video.

Watching it makes me feel pretty ugly and ashamed. I’m not benefiting society in any way [insert cricket noise]. And I’m also harming society. Well, it’s not me, per se, it’s my relationship. And that’s why society shouldn’t promote or permit my relationship; society should prohibit my relationship. My relationship is similar to pedophilia and incest.

I don’t actually believe that. That’s just what groups like the National Organization for Marriage believe and preach. And if I say I disagree or argue to the contrary, they’ll chew me up and spit me back out and declare “Same-sex marriage advocates need to be more tolerant.”

Same-sex marriage advocates need to be more tolerant. A message from the National Organization for Marriage.

You see, this is an issue of tolerance for opponents of same-sex marriage. But don’t get confused. They don’t have to tolerate anything in opposition to their beliefs. They’re in a position of power. They have privilege. They’re right, so ignore people like me. I’m just the minority. What do I know?

I mean, really. What do I know? It’s just impacts me. And don’t worry. I’m not upset. Even though they say all these crazy things about me, they still love me. It’s that tough love kind of a thing. The type of love that makes you stronger, turns you into a better person. And that’s what makes the next video so awesome. It illustrates where this all breaks down.

History suggests that people with these kinds of views about other people think they’re right and have proper justification for treating people differently. They also don’t think they’re mean or bigoted. They’re just referring people to fact and truth. I mean, at one point it was a fact that all races of people were expressions of different species, white people being the best. All other races were of inferior material so of course we should treat them differently. And of course the law should treat them differently. They act differently. Their behavior is different, and it’s not discrimination to treat behavior different.

Isn’t this discrimination against homosexuals? A message from the National Organization for Marriage.

It’s no different for gay people, right? They’re made of something different. They look different, act different, and even their relationships are different. And those differences mean they shouldn’t have all the same rights and protections under the law. We’re justified in treating the differently…

One of the adults in the video, reflecting on his childhood experience with discrimination over his eye color said, “I felt powerless and hopeless.” One group of kids was saying to the other “I’m better. You don’t deserve all the privileges I have because I’m better. It’s in my blood.” In essence, it’s no different from the message opponents of marriage equality are sending to gay people. They’re saying to us, “I’m better. I get protection under the law. You don’t deserve it.”

But what do I know? Technically speaking, I can divorce Dan and marry a woman.

The law already treats everyone equally. Every citizen can marry someone of the opposite sex. A message from the National Organization for Marriage.

Gay man goes undercover at National Organization for Marriage

People say that once you go gay you forget about God or even worse, turn into one of his enemies. A lot of people have said that about me, actually. They say things like, “You’re not the same person anymore” or “Why do you hate Mormons so much?” or “Don’t you have anything positive to say about religion?” The truth is, I only think about religion and God when religious people bring it up, and they usually bring it up in the context of me — because I’m gay — being anti. In other words, knowing nothing about what I actually think about religion or God, in their minds, because I’m gay, I must be anti. Even if I don’t say it, I must be trying to say something negative.

And I’ll admit, it makes me incredibly angry sometimes. It’s sort of like one of those self-fulfilling prophesies: the more you accuse me of being anti-God, the more I feel like I want to prove your point.

Maybe this experience will help clarify. When Dan and I moved into our new apartment I was a little weary of whether we’d fit in and whether we’d be safe. I felt this way because of the mega church being built down the road from our apartment complex. Why would I feel that way? Because religion has become, for me, a symbol of anti-gay activism, or hate rather. When untrue things these are said about me/people of my sexual orientation, it usually has something to do with God.

This was driven home recently when I read about a gay man who went undercover at a convention of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). He shared some pretty unpleasant quotes from the conference, all of which were said in the name of religion. Jokes about gays entering a mosque and never returning, attacks on the stability of same-sex relationships — you get the picture.

The author of the article, like me, gets pretty upset over this rhetoric. Why? Well, here’s what the author had to say:

“I realized that he wasn’t just talking about ‘gay parents’ in the abstract; he was talking about me. Each time Allen accused same-sex couples of sexually abusing their own children, he was questioning my ability to be a good parent one day, too.

“That sensation of feeling personally targeted would stick with me for the rest of the conference.”

But I get it. It’s not really about hating gay people. It’s about loving heterosexual marriage. So when you tear me down you’re just trying to build yourself up. And when you’re accused of hating gay people you just need a good excuse.

And what better excuse can there be than God? 

What it’s like to be a Mormon for marriage equality

This is one of the more powerful commentaries I’ve read on what it’s like to be a Mormon for marriage equality caught in the crossfires of personal conviction, leaders of your church, and other members of your church.

Mostly True Stuff: To my LDS readers.

via Mostly True Stuff: To my LDS readers.

I immediately think of this clip from the movie Saved (below) and this line at the end of the movie:

Mary: So everything that doesn’t fit into some stupid idea of what you think God wants you just try to hide or fix or get rid of? It’s just all too much to live up to. No one fits in one hundred percent of the time. Not even you.
Pastor Skip: I know that, Mary.
Dean: I know in my heart that Jesus still loves me.
Mary: Why would God make us all so different if he wanted us to be the same?

Hilary Faye: Mary, turn away from Satan. Jesus, he loves you.
Mary: You don’t know the first thing about love.
Hilary Faye: [throws a Bible at Mary] I am FILLED with Christ’s love! You are just jealous of my success in the Lord.
Mary: [Mary holds up the Bible] This is not a weapon! You idiot.

Hillary Faye (Mandy Moore) praying for Dean’s faggotry in the movie Saved!

Marriage equality explained by a Christian on YouTube

I really like what this kid–apparently a Christian–had to say about marriage equality.  I think he covers the topic with simple language while getting to the heart of the issue.  He tells the story of a gay couple who parted in a hospital unable to say goodbye because same-sex marriage is not legal.  Religion is a beautiful thing to me when it is used to improve lives and promote equality and social justice.  As the kid in the video said, “The Mennonite Church has made it its mission to mirror the life of Jesus by working with the marginalized and weak–the outcasts of society… I believe that if he were here today, Jesus would be a champion for homosexuals just like he was a champion for women, for the poor, for the weak, and for the unloved.”

8: A Play About the Fight for Marriage Equality by Dustin Lance Black

Dustin Lance Black teamed up with Google and YouTube to stream a play about marriage equality and Proposition 8. The play is a great way to get up to speed on the happenings of Proposition 8 (past, present, and future).  It’s also a great way to take a little peak into the lives of the plaintiffs, to see how marriage inequality impacts their family life.  Until today, I didn’t know who the plaintiffs were (other than knowing about the name “Perry” in Perry v. Schwarzanegger, now Perry v. Brown) and seeing them helped shape my outlook on the case: they’re actual people with lives and families.

Plaintiffs Sandy Stier, Kris Perry, Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo as pictured on zimbio.com

Spencer Perry, Kris Perry, Sandy Stier, and Elliott Perry as pictured on afer.org

Jamie Lee Curtis, acting as Sandy Stier, summarized what I feel was one of the most poignant parts of the play:

“The first time somebody said to me, ‘Are you married?’, and I said, ‘Yes’, I would think, ‘That feels good and honest and true.’  I would feel less like I had to protect my kids.”

This is a question I can relate to.  When strangers ask me, “Are you married?”, I stumble to find the right words or feel like I’m thrust into the middle of a debate where I’ll have to make some kind of argument to demonstrate I am in a valid relationship.  What is marriage?  Is it just the commitment Dan and I made to one another?  Then yes, I’m married: we are in a committed relationship.

Or is marriage merely a contract that binds us together under the law?  If that’s the case, then no, I’m not married.  We rent an apartment together.  We have a joint bank account and credit card.  We go on trips together and stay in the same hotel room.  We pay our taxes separately and we have separate health insurance.  We say “I love you” when we wake up, go to bed, and head off to work.  We are just like every other couple out there.  But, when it comes to legal rights, we have nothing that binds us together.  If Dan was in the hospital and I wanted the right to see him during family visiting hours, I’d have to pay a lawyer hundreds of dollars to draft some kind of contract, the same contract straight couples get for $45 at the courthouse.  When people ask, “Are you married?”, I’m forced to say “No, I’m not.”  And that leads to other questions, “Well, you have a ring on your finger.  What’s that about?”  Either that or they ask about my wife…

And some people ask, “Well, why don’t you move to a state where same-sex marriage is legal?”  They don’t understand that flying to a state where same-sex marriage is legal and getting a certificate there doesn’t make us married here in Utah.  The minute we cross state lines, legal benefits associated with marriage dissolve.

Understandably, I got a little verklempt when Jamie Lee Curtis shared her (or rather Sandy’s) thoughts about what it will be like when she can say, “Yes, I’m married.”

Macy’s likes me

Here’s a good little article about Macy’s support of marriage equality.

via Macy’s attacked for support of gay marriage – Blog – MyNorthwest.com.

LDS Church members in Minnesota encouraged to support anti-family legislation

Here’s an experience from a former (gay) Mormon and his efforts to help Minnesotans United for All Families ban a proposed constitutional amendment (similar to Prop. 8 in California) in his state.  A commenter asked how he feels about opposing his church’s (the LDS Church) efforts to ban same-sex marriage–or rather how he can “feel so warmly” towards a church that treats him and his husband like second-class citizens.

Considering the question for myself makes me a little emotional.  It reminds me of how I felt when I really examined questions about blacks in the early church. I felt like I had been lied to by a trusted friend, like I had been deceived.  There I was in church hearing one side of the story while others documented their side of the story, which is far more compelling.  My answers to the questions above tend to be pretty negative, but here’s what the blogger had to say:

I love and want to be a part of the LDS Church for the same reason that I want to be married: because I have faith in our ability to grow and become better, more loving people through the commitments we make to each other. Both forms of commitment are an expression of my faith in and love for God.

I guess that’s a pretty fair statement.  Through our commitment, Dan and I have become better people.  We’ve grown closer and more committed.  To those who want to become better people through their commitment to their respective churches, I salute and support you.  As you commit to your church, please consider how your faith might impact the extent to which gay couples can commit.

Just like members of the LDS Church in California were urged to vote Yes on 8, members in Minnesota are being urged to vote in favor of a constitutional amendment that affirms one-man, one-woman marriages are the only marriages to be recognized in Minnesota.  A blogger in Minnesota shared her experience when the letter was read over the pulpit:

“I have a letter to read from the stake presidency”.  Those words rarely precede anything good in my experience. Such was the case last Sunday. Typically, edicts come down from the LDS first presidency (the head honchos in SLC). So whatever came next was going to be Minnesota related. That could only mean one thing. dun dun DUUUUN…  WE CAN’T LET THE GAYS DESTROY THE FAMILY!

I could feel my blood pressure rising as I braced myself for whatever rhetoric was about to be unleashed. The gist of the letter was an explanation of the ballot initiative next November – if it passes, the state constitution would amend article XIII to read, “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota.” The letter did not come out and say which way to vote but the underlying message was clear. We were advised to remember the family is a fundamental unit of society and to read the Proclamation on the Family and prayerfully consider how to get involved. It concluded with a reminder that church buildings and directories are not to be used for political purposes – with this caveat – unless otherwise directed.

She also recalled that church members were encouraged to support DOMA, which I didn’t know.  So, to my knowledge, the LDS Church has encouraged its members to vote against gay marriage in Hawaii, California, Minnesota, and it sounds like everywhere else when DOMA was up for debate.

It is important to be informed on issues that take away rights from others.  If you’re LDS/Mormon, again, consider how your votes will impact other peoples’ lives and relationships.