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.
We see Mormon missionaries walking around our complex from time to time and the thought of them stopping by our places generates interesting dialogue around here. We’ll get political with ’em and tell ’em what we think about Prop 8! We’ll tell them not to mess up our chance to have legal rights in Maryland!
Well, it happened and despite all the preparations, it was a little unexpected and threw us off our political groove. And it was only slightly awkward. We don’t get many visitors, so when there’s a knock at the door it means something crazy is about to happen. Dan peeked through the peephole on the door, gasped, and opened the door. Expecting the police, I was surprised when I heard (from the other room) someone ask for Dan by name. Misha bounded for the door, so I went toward the door to snatch him up. And there they were. Missionaries.
I grabbed Misha and stepped into the other room. Mostly to keep Misha from running out the door, but also to keep Dan from hearing me laugh. They asked Dan when he stopped going to church. He replied, “When I married him” and pointed to me. (It was actually before we got married, but he just needed something to say to get them to leave).
There are many theories out there about what causes same-sex attraction (i.e., what makes people gay). This explanation is probably the best one I’ve heard: evil female spirits that possess the bodies of gay men. How’s that for parsimony?
A Mormon ponders what causes same-sex attraction: evil female spirits.
Modern Family is one of the most liberal, family-threatening shows out there. There’s a good chance your kids will turn gay when they see how Hollywood portrays Cam and Mitch: as a “normal”, happy family. In case you didn’t get the memo, gay couples can’t be happy and if they seem happy, they’re just faking it. Gay relationships debase and demean humanity and almost always involve criminal acts. At least this seems to be what some people think about gays and lesbians and their families (and ABC’s Modern Family). NOTE: This is not what I think.
The gay dads of ABC's Modern Family: Mitch (left) and Cam (right)
An acquaintance recently interjected his thoughts about the show while I was discussing how funny the show is with a friend: “Modern Family? You watch that show?! I’ve heard it’s so irreverent!” For those who might not understand the significance of the word “irreverent” I’ll try to explain it. In the context of Mormonism, reverence is respect for God. Irreverence then is disrespect (i.e., Modern Family disrespects God). But to Mormons, reverence is more than just quietly sitting: it’s thinking of God, praising him, and showing respect for all things he created. In short, it’s a way of live. Kids are taught in primary to be reverent (i.e., to sit still and use nice words); to be called irreverent is probably one of the worst things a child could be called. It’s almost like having a scarlet letter placed on your lapel. Calling Modern Family irreverent is a strong statement from the Mormon perspective. Was his statement really about the show, though? No. It’s about families, and real families don’t include gay families. In other words, according to Mormons it’s okay to be disrespectful toward gay families because they’re not real families. It’s okay to write disrespectful comments like this off as “Well, this is what we believe. If you don’t like it, frick you.” But they don’t really believe that, right? Wrong. Here’s how Boyd K. Packer describes it:
“World leaders and court judges agree that the family must endure if we are to survive. At the same time, they use the words freedom and choice as tools to pry apart the safeguards of the past and loosen up the laws on marriage… In so doing, they promote the very things which threaten the family” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1994, 24; or Ensign, May 1994, 19).
But they’re not really talking about my (same-sex) marriage, right? From the LDS Newsroom:
“Court decisions in Massachusetts (2004) and California (2008) have allowed same-sex marriages. This trend constitutes a serious threat to marriage and family. The institution of marriage will be weakened, resulting in negative consequences for both adults and children... Traditional marriage is essential to society as a whole, and especially to its children… The legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children”
“[Same-sex relationships] debase and demean those involved… and involve violent and criminal acts”
They’re also on record for using intimidation to enforce compliance. “We’ll take away your temple recommend if you don’t fall in line” they say. One Latter-day Saint recalled an experience she had after posting a video on YouTube about a lesson her kids had in primary: I will love others. She showed a picture of kids of different races encircled with a heart standing hand-in-hand and wonders how it’s possible for her church, which has taught her so much about loving others, to take away marriage from others (i.e., Prop. 8 in California). She recalled:
“[My local leaders] were directed to [the video] by church headquarters. At the end of some very heart felt discussions, my speaking out with this video threatened my temple recommend and my calling, and I ultimately chose to take it down to protect my standing in the church.”
When called hateful and intolerant for these views, here’s how the LDS Church replied (and yes, this was funded, created, and put out by the LDS Church):
My own experiences in the Church were similar. I met with a Stake President years ago who told me I don’t have a place in the Church unless I seek out therapy and change my orientation. He didn’t take time to know what my experiences had been: he assumed that because I’m gay I must have mental health needs (e.g., anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts and ideations). In fact, he said this to me (direct quote): “We don’t want to know what this experience has been like for you.”
So what’s my point? My point is this: so often members of different religions believe it is okay to poke fun at or speak condescendingly of others who don’t believe like them. They use intimidation (e.g., sarcasm and social disapproval, threatening to discipline members who disagree on political issues) and shame to create a world of people who walk, talk, and believe like them. In the words of Mary from the movie Saved:
“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”
And they can’t handle it when people respond.
It's okay for Christians to be mean as long as they're mean to people God hates.
To any member of any religion who opposes my marriage, let’s have a little respect. You can call my choices a sin — you’re within your rights to do so — but let’s not vote on whether I should have legal benefits. And please be respectful toward my family.
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.”
Years ago I participated in an online discussion forum for members of the LDS Church who “struggle” with “same-sex” or “same-gender attraction”. A member of the discussion forum shared an epiphany with the group that went something like this (not an exact quote):
I finally understand. The reason God has asked his prophets [leaders of the LDS Church] to speak out against same-sex marriage is because if same-sex marriage is allowed then God’s children will have fewer families to be born into.
To set the stage a little, not all faithful members of the LDS Church agree with the movement to stop same-sex marriage from becoming legal, and this is particularly true among faithful members of the Church who identify as gay, lesbian, and same-sex or same-gender attracted. I was met with some hostility when I pointed out the epiphany wasn’t logical. I think I was accused of being apostate because I didn’t agree with the logic.
I understand the author was likely speaking of the possibility that if gay marriage becomes legal, then quite possibly some men (gay) and women (lesbian) who would otherwise pursue opposite-sex marriages might pursue same-sex marriages instead. But the argument isn’t really logical because whether or not same-sex marriage is legal, straight couples (at least the ones who can and choose to along with the few accidentals) will continue to have children. In other words, the number of existing straight relationships will probably not increase of decrease when already existing gay relationships are legally recognized. Maybe there’s something I’m not understanding, so please comment if you would like to add to the discussion.
While discussing this on Facebook, someone pointed out the same argument (quoted above). I really like the response a friend made to this argument (minus Katy Perry being spoken of in bad light):
[Kim Kardashian, Sinead O’Connor, and Katy Perry] each publicly married and then publicly divorced in really short time (72 days, 18ish days, and a year or something like that). Those people threaten and destroy the sanctity of marriage and the sanctity of families. I’m not sure how you and Dan’s committed relationship affect my relationship with my spouse or theoretical children or the sanctity of my marriage.
Why is this discussion relevant? Dan talked about this in a beautiful post about my family and how relationships are often challenged because of the teaching of principle of tough love. Perhaps “tough love” is destroying families more than my relationship to Dan is destroying families. An anonymous blogger shared his fear that as the Church continues to argue that gay relationships are destroying families, families with a gay member will continue to be destroyed. Perhaps lobbying against certain kinds of families is destroying families. Years ago I participated in a discussion with a family who lost a family member to suicide. The note the family member left suggested he committed suicide due to the Church’s participation in the political process and ensuing discussions that took place within the walls LDS chapels. They were brought to tears when they talked about what it was like when they learned the Church was advocating for Prop. 8 and encouraging members of the Church to get involved. They worried that more gay Mormons would commit suicide. They were also deeply conflicted: they support the leaders of the LDS Church as their spiritual leaders but they also lost a child because of the Church’s involvement.
This discussion is also relevant because Republican presidential candidates are making similar arguments. Freedom to Marry asserted that Perry, Romney, and Gingrich (respectively) “declared that committed couples wanting to marry are part of a war against religion”, adoption agencies would be shut down if they don’t adopt out to same-sex couples, and that it is not possible to comprehend gay families as families so “we want to make it possible to have those things that are most intimately human between friends”. Rick Santorum is the poster child for the Republican party claiming he will forcibly divorce gay married couples.
Maybe the real threats to religious freedom, family, and child birth are not gay couples, but the people fighting against gay couples. In other words, maybe fighting against my freedoms decreases your freedoms: you can still have babies and go to church while Dan and I go to school, pay our bills, and file our (separate-but-equal) tax returns.
Finally, this discussion is relevant because, let’s be honest, the arguments against same-sex marriage aren’t really about adoption rights, the first amendment, or even tradition, as Cary Crall posited in BYU’s Daily Universe (which, of course, was later pulled from the paper). Crall asked what it’s all about and asserted:
The real reason is that a man who most of us believe is a prophet of God told us to support the amendment. We must accept this explanation, along with all its consequences for good or ill on our own relationship with God and his children here on earth. Maybe then we will stop thoughtlessly spouting reasons that are offensive to gays and lesbians and indefensible to those not of our faith.
An argument for traditional biblical marriage?
If it is your belief that God doesn’t want same-sex marriage, come out of the closet and say so. I’m okay with that. You must also realize that even if that is your belief, we live in a pluralistic society; not everyone shares your beliefs and it is not okay to require that everyone uphold your beliefs. If same-sex marriage becomes legal, you can still have babies and go to church.
In a not-so-recent discussion with a friend I was asked about my past (a true-believing Mormon or TBM) and how I got to where I am now (partnered to someone of the same sex). That’s not an easy question to answer but I’ll do my best to answer this question. My assumption is many who read my blog have this same question. And before I answer this question I’d like to openly state that my purpose in explaining these things is not recruit any one to my way of thinking; it’s merely to explain for those who would like to understand. Hopefully it will also explain how other people also get from point A to point B in their own “spiritual journeys”.
To start, I’ll take you down memory lane. Around my 18th birthday is when my spiritual journey started. Growing up in Utah, the religion to which I was exposed was the Mormon church. Due to the passing of a family member, I began to take religion more seriously: Is there life after death? Will I be with my family in the after life? Am I worthy to live with them in the Celestial Kingdom? Those are the questions I asked, and I decided the answers to questions were an emphatic yes and subsequently served a full-time mission for the LDS Church. I was called to the Baltic Mission (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), served two years, and loved almost about everything about it (at the time). More on that later.
Me on an LDS mission in Estonia
In preparation to serve, I went through the temple in Logan Utah. I think this is when my first doubts about religion began. Sitting in the temple ceremony I asked, “What in the world have I gotten myself into?” I felt like I had hopped on the wrong bus and it was taking me somewhere I wasn’t sure I wanted to go. My main concern was the subordination of women to men and the realization that LDS women will probably never be equal in status to LDS men. If I marry a woman in an LDS temple one day, could I ask her to submit to me? And would I be okay with my role as a mediator between her and God — that her relationship with God would be defined not as a direct relationship with God but her relationship to me as I sort of shield her from God. Another concern was the fact that I couldn’t get up and leave without being stigmatized and without embarrassing my family or letting them down.
LDS temple in Logan, Utah
You see, social pressure is a huge part of Mormonism. I couldn’t acknowledge my true feelings about that experience for fear of being kicked out, both in the literal sense of being kicked out of the temple and in the metaphorical sense of being rejected by Mormons. Actually, I did acknowledge my thoughts to a few close friends shortly after going through the temple for the first time. They asked, “So, what was it like?” and I resisted expected responses like “I felt like I was home” or “I felt so close to heaven”. I said, “I had a testimony of the Church until now.” As another blogger explained, the LDS Church is really good at enforcing social expectations to keep everyone “in the bounds of ‘acceptable’ behavior”. He speculated that the LDS Church provides a place of community (but you have to give up individuality to fit in). So, to fit in, I didn’t talk about those feelings with any one else. I didn’t want to lose friends; good friends are hard to find.
Jaani kirik (St. John's church) in Tartu, Estonia
Castle in Russia as seen across the river from Narva, Estonia
My experience in the Church continued to be one of living up to social expectations. That’s just how it seems to works. As a missionary, I tried to live up to the expectation of being a challenging and testifying missionary. My very first day in the mission field I was challenged by someone from another faith. My testimony about my church was met by the testimony from someone else about her church; she spoke with as much conviction as me. The solution other missionaries seemed to use was to speak down on members of other religions: “He’s such a good person. Too bad he’s Lutheran; he won’t make it to heaven.” As a lay service member of my local congregation (post-mission), I continued to live up to social expectations despite not really feeling all the things I was supposed to be feeling about the Church.
LDS (Mormon) chapel in Tallin, Estonia where I served as a missionary for two years.
What was I supposed to be feeling? No one really seems to know. It’s not science. You’ll just know when you feel it. Boyd K. Packer claimed it’s just like trying to explain what salt tastes like:
Such an idea came into my mind and I said to the atheist, “Let me ask if you know what salt tastes like.”
“Of course I do,” was his reply.
“When did you taste salt last?”
“I just had dinner on the plane.”
“You just think you know what salt tastes like,” I said.
He insisted, “I know what salt tastes like as well as I know anything.”
“If I gave you a cup of salt and a cup of sugar and let you taste them both, could you tell the salt from the sugar?”
“Now you are getting juvenile,” was his reply. “Of course I could tell the difference. I know what salt tastes like. It is an everyday experience—I know it as well as I know anything.”
“Then,” I said, “assuming that I have never tasted salt, explain to me just what it tastes like.”
After some thought, he ventured, “Well-I-uh, it is not sweet and it is not sour.”
“You’ve told me what it isn’t, not what it is.”
My friend, spiritually speaking, I have tasted salt. I am no more able to convey to you in words how this knowledge has come than you are to tell me what salt tastes like.
The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord (Proverbs 20:27). I'm not really sure what that means.
And that’s the whole crux of Mormonism: it’s true because you just know it is even though you can’t really explain how or why. But as a Mormon you can’t stop there. You then have the responsibility to share what you know with others (even if you don’t really know). Packer continued:
Oh, if I could teach you this one principle. A testimony is to be found in the bearing of it! Somewhere in your quest for spiritual knowledge, there is that “leap of faith,” as the philosophers call it. It is the moment when you have gone to the edge of the light and stepped into the darkness to discover that the way is lighted ahead for just a footstep or two.
My service in the Church was exactly that: me telling others what I knew to be true before I ever felt or believed it was true. That is the part of the mission experience I didn’t like. As Viktor Frankl contended, it seemed my whole mission experience was “depict[ing]…God as a being who is primarily concerned with being believed in by the greatest possible number of believers, and along the lines of a specified creed at that” (Man’s Search for Ultimate Meaning, p. 17). Those experiences didn’t stop there, however. I continued my service in the Church for several years after returning home from missionary service. I continued to tell people I knew things I didn’t really believe hoping to have the promised experiences.
So what do I believe now?
Saying that one religion is true is like saying that one point in the evolutionary history of a species is “true.” religions are cultural institutions and as such are subject to eventual and gradual change as they adapt. Those members of the religion that hold counter-productive views will not spread those beliefs and those that have effective, pro-social views will pass on the traits of their religion. This is how a religion, like a species, evolves (B.F. Skinner, Beyond Freedom and Dignity, p 128).