“It was my first love. It changed my life. Back then, my mind would wander to the women I had been with, the ones I cared for and thought I was in love with. I reminisced about the sentimental songs I enjoyed when I was a teenager… The ones I played when I experienced a girlfriend for the first time. I realized they were written in a language I did not yet speak.”
R&B singer/songwriter Frank Ocean came out as gay.
A number of years back I had a similar experience: dating women, I thought I knew what it felt like to be in love. I thought I could relate to all the sappy love movies and love songs. When I allowed myself to start figuring out what being gay was all about I realized that wasn’t the case. As I started dating men, I realized I had never really been in love before. And I definitely couldn’t relate to the pain others experienced when they went through break ups until I went through my first break up with a man. It hurt like hell. I finally understood why people would lay in bed listening to the same song over and over and over again; that’s what I did, that’s how I coped, and that’s how everyone around me coped. Here’s an accurate description of what it’s like.
It’s pretty pathetic, I know. But at the time, it was revelatory. Just as Ocean described, falling in love (and breaking up) opened me up to a whole new language: the language of love. I was suddenly able to identify with friends and peers on one of the most powerful human emotions, something I had never experienced with women. The conversation I was having in my head (the things you think and never say) about friend and family going through break ups changed from “you wimp” to “Yeah, that sucks. I get it.”
And this revelation works the other way, too. Straight people who don’t get the gay thing realize what it’s all about when we relate over the shared experience of falling in love (or breaking up). A friend told me about the moment when his mom became an ally. She just didn’t get it until he told her about a guy he had fallen for. As he described his feelings, she stopped and said something like, “WAIT A MINUTE! That’s what I feel about your dad. You must be in love.” Revelation.
To sum it up, sexuality isn’t really all that significant or important. Love is love. It’s universal. Or, as Ocean puts it in one of his songs, marriage is between love and love (not man and woman).
Listen to his music and see if you can catch him sneaking in clues about his sexuality.
An example of a microaggression directed at gays men in mixed-orientation marriages
I stumbled across a blog post written by a gay man who was once married to a woman. His ex-wife started a website for the straight spouses of mixed-orientation marriages (you can read more about that in the Salt Lake Tribune). According to the author of the original blog post, commentaries at the Salt Lake Tribune included statements like this:
“If he can have sex with [get aroused by] a woman, he’s bisexual”
The author explains why that is not the case and why he identifies as gay and not bisexual. Read his post and share your thoughts.
What does this mean for Mormons? Mormons who support same-sex marriage and Mormons with family and friends in same-sex relationships probably don’t have friends and allies in their congregations. Or do they? I appreciated a discussion on this blog on the topic. I’ll preface my thoughts with the fact that I found this blog through a friend who knows the author, and the author doesn’t know that our common friend is gay. She is probably unaware of the (positive) impact this post had on our common friend.
To summarize, the author hesitantly came out as an ally and supporter of marriage equality. For those who aren’t familiar with LDS culture, coming out as a supporter of marriage equality might warrant being tossed into the lion’s den (so to speak). You are automatically a heretic despite any other belief you might hold. For example, here are responses from the comment section from fellow (Christ-like) Mormons:
“Grow up, get off your computer and raise your kids. You’re about as Mormon as Roseanne Barr.”
“Get a grip and stop mixing what you feel with what is Godly or not. That is your opinion, not Christ principles.”
“I read you are LDS. Is this a fact? Are you active?” [That is to say, do you go to church every Sunday]
“[Do you] really have a true testimony of these prophets and apostles[?]” [That is to say, are you really a Mormon like me]
“Mormons are viewing the gay marriage issue as some sort of gateway drug to apostasy”
The interesting thing about these comments to me is that typically what leads people away from participation in church activities is lack of acceptance of those who differ on political issues. So, the people who made these comments are, is some sense, pushing people into inactivity and apostasy. But that’s a different discussion. I’ll continue with the current discussion.
The cool part of this discussion for me was seeing people come out of the woodwork. People in the same congregation as the author, family members, and friends. In a sense, the author gave them permission to speak up and agree.
“I whole heartedly agree and I am in your ward!”
“I am also in your ward. AND feel EXACTLY like Lexi”
“I know if I were to tell my family and friends that I agree with you, it would cause an uproar”
“I agree…well done, Lexi. It is so much easier for us to keep quiet with our unpopular opinions to avoid others disfavor…but you stepped out there. I’m proud of you!”
“I agree with every single word you said here. I bet you will have more and more people find the courage to speak out and agree with you now that you wrote this. You are paving the way for so many.”
What does this mean for the Church? More and more Mormons are questioning The Brethren and their own faith as they try to align their political and religious beliefs. And it seems that the more the Church pushes against marriage equality the more Mormons leave the faith. And it’s not about testimony or lack of faith; it’s about finding a home among Mormons who don’t accept you because you don’t vote like them.
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.
Gay Mormons (currently and formerly affiliated with the LDS Church) are talking up a storm on social media about Boyd K. Packer’s recent speech to LDS youth. Allies have also joined in the discussion. Believe it or not, allies reside on both sides of the affiliation fence. Despite differences of affiliation with the LDS Church, conversations reveal gay Mormons and their allies are torn. Some voiced concern over the conflict of supporting Boyd K. Packer as a prophet, seer, and revelator but not agreeing with his position (or more appropriately his tone and attitude) on gay issues. Others voiced full support of his views and vowed to stand by him. For example, (Gay) Mormon Guy blogged about Packer’s controversial speech from October of 2010; the post went viral (in Mormon communities and by Mormon standards). I saw it a bunch in my newsfeed on Facebook. Mormons were saying things like this:
See. Not all people who suffer from same-gender attraction are offended by Elder Packer’s talk. Because his words touched the life of this guy, that means Packer is a prophet, and because he’s a prophet that means everything he says is right.
I’m not being critical of Packer’s position as a leader of the LDS Church, and I don’t want it to come across as calling his position as a prophet, seer, and revelator into question either. The truth of those facts is not relevant for this discussion. I simply want to point out the conflict, talk about why it’s an important conflict, and discuss the consequences. First, it is important to understand the larger picture behind the controversy that is Boyd K. Packer.
I actually didn’t find recent talk to seminary students all that controversial. At least not the transcript. As someone in social media pointed out, his facial expression are the controversy. If you want to go to all the trouble, pull up the talk here, skip all the boring stuff and jump to about 42:00 where he starts talking in euphemisms about the gay stuff. Pat attention to his facial expression at 43:19. If you don’t want to go to all the trouble, here’s a screen shot of his face at that point.
Boyd K. Packer of the LDS Church gives a disgusted look while talking to youth about so-called gays and lesbians
Aside from looking pretty old and not so well, I didn’t find the facial expression too problematic. But it doesn’t matter what that facial expression communicates to me. What does the facial expression communicate to young, closeted gay Mormon kids? It’s hard to know, but my own experience with Packer helps me understand what effect his look of disgust might have on them.
In a pamphlet To Young Men Only, Packer shares an experience he had as a mission president in which a young missionary “floored” his companion and replied, “Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it, and it wouldn’t be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way.” The details of the experience aren’t totally clear, but it is obvious that one missionary is gay (the one who was “floored”) and the other is not (the one who “floored” the other). When that portion of the pamphlet was read to me in a priesthood meeting as a kid (shortly after my bishop at the time learned that I am gay), I remember how I felt and what I thought:
“Is someone going to ‘floor’ me when they find out I’m gay? Am I safe at church? Will my bishop pat them on the back like Elder Packer patted this missionary on the back?”
I became a little anxious about going to church. I had a difficult time interpreting that talk, as a kid, as anything but a license (from a man who speaks with God) to hurt and harm. It scared me to think God, as dictated by one of his servants, wanted my peers to beat the gay out of me. And then what all the guys in my church group who seem gay but probably aren’t gay? Will God help them know the difference between those who are gay and those who seem gay? Or will they just beat up whoever they want and then say, “Eh, it’s okay. This is what God wants (because that’s what his servants want).”
Some pointed out the Church spoke out against bullying gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth and therefore it’s not right to say the Church condones bullying. I understand this point, and I might argue for the same point except for one detail: it says nothing about how kids will react. Just because the Church comes out and says they don’t support or condone bullying does not mean that every gay, lesbian, or bi youth in the church will automatically feel safe nor does it mean they are immune to depression and suicide.
The more I think on this topic, the more I realize LDS Church culture is rife with microaggressions against gays and lesbians. What are microaggressions? Per MicroAggressions.com, microaggressions are about the response “it’s not a big deal”. Maybe you’ve had that response as you’ve read over this. “It’s not a big deal, Ryan. No one is dying here.” Well, this is also about how your power and privilege prevent you from understanding the big deal. It’s about how you remind people in the most subtle ways that they are different and not respectable.
Consider the microaggressions from an interview Packer referenced in his speech. The interview was done by Larry King on President Gordon B. Hinckley. Here’s a small clip.
We aren’t anti-gay; we’re pro-marriage
We know they (gays and lesbians) have a problem
So-called gays and lesbians
They have to discipline themselves
It wouldn’t be right for a General Authority to solve the problem that way
If you still don’t see how this is aggressive, consider replacing “gay” with “black” or “women” or “feminist” or some other group.
We aren’t anti-black; we’re pro-white
We know women have a problem
So-called feminists
Feminists have to discipline themselves
It wouldn’t be right for a General Authority to solve the problem with an atheist that way
What are the consequences? Gay Mormons (and many of their allies) will continue to either leave the Church or be kicked out of the Church. Some would argue this is what should happen and this is what makes the world a better place: drive out everything “evil”. Drive out everyone you don’t agree with so you can be surrounded by those who think, act, and believe like you. If that doesn’t work, blame it on the devil; surely he has a hold of their souls. In other words, don’t communicate to them how awesome they are, don’t accept them, don’t tolerate them, and let them continue to be depressed. Who knows. You might get what you wished for: one fewer gay/lesbian member of your congregation and belief. You just might succeed at driving them away.
Next time Boyd K. Packer makes a controversial remark or judgmental look about so-called gays and lesbians, or someone like Gordon B. Hinckley is interviewed by Larry King, or a pamphlet similar to To Young Men Only is published, or a young man or woman weeps in church pews because he or she has no one to turn to, consider the consequences of microaggressions.
unambiguous 