Socializing With Evangelicals

Last night I spent the evening socializing with a bunch of evangelicals, along with members of the GLBT community; about 8 people on each team.

I would not normally want to do such a thing, seeing how we've interacted in the past. Fact is I am so tired of this. This point in Utah's legislative session is where I typically start to wear down and this session has been difficult, from the loss of all Common Ground Bills on the heals of Prop 8, to Buttar's declaration that gays have no morals, followed by the agreement of his Legislative buddies (they just didn't like the way he said it...). But I went because, frankly, I'm a desperate man; I'll drag myself along and will take on most forms of discomfort and exposure to just be heard on the other side, just in case that helps the three huge responsibilities I left at home last night.

I'm glad I did it though.

The conversation was moderated, and cushioned between periods of socializing. It went well and the only time I got stirred up was in listening to one of my friends talk about the hurt our families have gone through this last year in Utah and in regards to the LDS. There wasn't any hostility from either side, though. No one was trying to be cruel, even with that veneer of love, and no animosity was engendered that I could detect, and that is a tribute to their and the moderator's approach. It seems some leaders in Utah can't advocate even love and "mutual respect" without being insulting and inflammatory :-).

In short, these were not the evangelicals who protest at Pride or LDS conference. They were folks who love and are adherent to their faith. They were people who believe Paul when he seemingly wrote to the Romans that homosexuality is a sin. However, they were sincerely looking for common ground; it wasn't the sort of bait and switch I've come to expect. They actually heard our fears for our homes, and agreed on issues of equal rights and law... or at least seemed to, my cynical side wants to add, but I'm trying to give these folk the benefit of the doubt.

We talked about the legal issues our homes face here; we talked about the trouble the adoption law, for example, causes some of our children. We talked about how dehumanizing it feels when it seems like the average evangelical looks at us and all they see is something relatively unimportant to us, sex, not a parent, not a spouse, not a citizen. The christian gays and lesbians talked about the challenges they feel in finding a community of faith for their families.

But we were there to hear their fears too.

They wanted to know from the christian gays and lesbians if love, inclusion but not a blessing of their unions was enough for them to fit into their congregation; they agreed it was. They were even wondering "why don't we sit in the same pews?", which is much more religious inclusion than we're used to, seeing as the church of our youth would likely excommunicate every gay couple there. Nevertheless, we don't want their faith to change in their churches; we want the government we share in the secular world to be blind to our anatomy, and to treat us how they'd want to be treated.

Also, as they said, they've been in the majority in the US for a long time and they fear their numbers are dwindling, and that's scares them. No one there said this was their personal fear but they said it was an evangelical fear that, if they give us equal rights, it eventually will lead to gays treating them the way they now treat us. They are afraid of payback, that the same tools the LDS and some evangelicals are using on us now will some day be turned on them, if they give us any ground. I think the gay community should be more sensitive to that fear. Even if we don't see that as a likely event and it's not in our hearts, we need to get it across that, if that day ever came, we'd still be on the side of religious freedom and equality, on the evangelical's side on that day. We also need to get across that, to aleviate any chance of that fear comming true, they should not be putting tension on the pendulum of politics. They should fight to bring the mass to the middle, fight for equality and protections for us both under law, else, when they're forced to let go, they might convert their potential to kinetic energy against them down the line.

Anyway, while we may never agree about a letter from Paul two-thousand years ago, it seems we can still render unto Caesar what's Caesar's and have each other's back in the political arena. In the end, cliche as it is, bridges were built; there weren't two teams. I hate that gulf of misunderstanding between my family and the majority of LDS Utahns out there; it's one I'm nearly certain we could bridge with 90% of them if we just spent a similar evening together... but there are only so many evenings and I'm looking for my family to spend them elsewhere. Nevertheless, you have to celebrate the small steps, right?

Sutherland's Ground

Last night I was supposed to go to that Sutherland Institute event. I was personally invited ;-) but others hoped to "infiltrate".

However, I've been up two nights in a row with sick fevery kids, and I came home from work yesterday to find everyone but me had finally shared the germs. As any parent knows, it's much easier to be sick than the only healthy person in your home :-).

So I skipped the event and took care of dinner for my three sick men. Fortunately many others from the gay community went, and even though the Sutherlands tried to keep gay people out, some got in and were able to hear what they were selling our fellow Utahns.

This morning, the fevers were gone and just a cold remained for the kids, and so I got them ready for school, after a brief debate about germ theory and immunology. No, Alan you'll not get a worse version of the cold you gave to Brian if you use Brian's bath tub... I only won by invoking my Dr. title and an argument from authority; thank goodness he's still young enough to fall for it :-).

I read the paper before taking the boys to school, and found the Tribune article on the Sutherland gathering, though. It turns out they're main hope is that lawmakers will fall for a bunch logical fallacies, much more blatant than the one I used to get my kid in the tub.

600 Utahns gathered inside to answer what they saw as a "challenge to family and freedom."

Appeal to fear, begging the question... It's just simple double speak: we have to limit their freedoms and harm their families to answer a challenge to family and freedom? But people buy it easily. Very often here, limiting a person's and their entire family's rights just on sexual anatomy is called standing up for freedom. I have to wonder what these groups will do when faced with the business end of their own tactics; how will they react if given the sort of freedom they now want gay citizens to have?

The Common Ground Initiative, declared former Rep. LaVar Christensen, the author of Utah's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, Amendment 3, "is actually very uncommon."

Well, that's just demonstrably false. According to public opinion polls and even the church to which most of them belong, there is common ground. It's there in words and PR at least, and only seems to disappear when anyone tries to stand on it.

"It would be groundbreaking and lead to what we just witnessed in California," he told the crowd,

Slippery Slope fallacy, one countered just today even by one of the anti-marriage equality architects of our Amendment 3. But that won't matter, not up on the hill. Rights for gay people mean pride marchers will be sauntering through the Celestial Room, and jacuzziing in the baptismal tubs in a matter of months.

Groundbreaking, though? I'd love to take a look at Christensen's dictionary, right? :-) Yeah, truly new and shocking to all sensibilities if my husband could sue a drunk driver who killed me, as most people could and as has been possible for gay couples for a long time in many other jurisdictions.

"Some claim that standing up for the enduring, even sacred, definitions of marriage and family is showing hate for those who disagree," she said. "They are wrong. Defending marriage and family is an act of love for our children and our children's children."

Where to start in this mess of non sequiturs? Who doesn't want to defend marriage and family? How is making it illegal to fire or kick someone out of their home because of their sexual orientation (gay or straight) even touching their definition of marriage? This is just weird and yet I know it sells with an easy nod.

Anyway, I don't think, Sutherland Institute, you're hateful; I think you can be hysterical and cruel to your neighbors and still enjoy feeling a sort of love for them. History is ripe with so many good intentions.

I wish you'd listen to us, though. No one is mad at you for "standing up for the enduring, even sacred, definitions of marriage and family", no matter how wrong you are in this fallacy of argument from tradition (e.g. 1, 2). Stand up and believe all you want; I won't care. Just stop trying to take my tax dollars with one hand and push your rules about which anatomy goes with which into my home with the other. It's your harm to real people and real families that get's them frustrated, not your special dictionary or beliefs or what you want for yourself. The problem is your hope to, based only on their sexual anatomy, make legally invisible another family's "enduring, even sacred, definitions of marriage and family". From my view, you are a threat to the definition of marriage and family.

The difference between us, though, is that I want the government we are all forced to share and pay into to respect your family and how you want to define it. I want your family to be treated in law the way I'd want my family treated.

Again, I have to wonder, these people who disdain the idea of finding common ground and claim to be the only side holding sacred ground, how would they defend themselves if the tide turned and the weapons of thin "love" and "freedom" they work to establish now were pointed back at their families? I bet the Golden Rule, live and let live, and common ground would look a lot better to them than it does now, and I would hope to be the person to do my best then to be on their side.

Anyway, I guess I'm glad I missed it, took care of my sick guys, and stayed in our world. This morning was "Moms and Muffins" day at our boy's school. We all went, had a great time, runny noses aside. No one shows any care if two dads sit on the floor and read books and eat muffins with their kids along with a bunch of mothers. We have as many friends there in parents as our boys do in classmates. No one there sees excluding our family as somehow "upholding" anything near right or sacred. They're all reasonable enough to understand that there are exceptions, and there's no threat to the majority to treat the minority how they'd want to be treated. If only we could have muffins with all those other folks :-).

Wrongful Death, SB32

Yesterday I wrote "If I could get close enough to the men in power I'd be begging." Yesterday, that's what I did.

Though I did not talk to those LDS church leaders weighing in on law, of course :-). I've no right to speak to those leaders, but lawmakers are another matter, and so I phone banked with Equality Utah yesterday, calling those on the committees that will be hearing SB 32, Wrongful Deaths Amendments.

You can read the bill here.

In short, it would let Rob sue my killer for compensation if, say, I was killed by a drunk driver, something he could only do if he were a legal spouse. As with all the common ground bills, it applies not only to same-sex couples; a dependent nephew could be given grounds for compensation, for example.

To me this bit of equal protection for my family would mean some peace of mind, to know Rob, our main homemaker, could have some recourse to be compensated for my death, if I were killed on my way home from work. Our loss of companionship and support, both emotional and material, is every bit as horrible as the average person's loss and the law should respond with that in consideration when someone acts to take our life, as it would for any other family. We're human too.

I'd like to think, "How could anyone argue?", but they will. Last night, I got the answering machine of almost every lawmaker I called and I left a lot of messages. But, when I did get a person on the line, I heard some resistance. We'll see.

Please though, this bill may be voted on in committee Monday or Tuesday. Call your senator if they are in the committee:

Gov’t Oper. & Political Subdivisions
Peter Knudson, Chair
Greg Bell
Jon Greiner
Scott Jenkins
Dan Liljenquist
Scott McCoy
Luz Robles

Well, you probably don't need to call McCoy... he's the sponsor. You can find their contact info here.

All we need to do for now is express support of SB32 (I'll try to find the IDs for the other bills as they come in). You should probably point out that the bill doesn't only help gay couples; helping gay citizens isn't often seen as a plus here :-). Also, point out the bill should decrease reliance on government welfare and transfer the costs of supporting a homemaker who's breadwinner has been killed on to the killer instead of the taxpayer.

Call your state senator or representative on SB32 and the other "common ground" bills anyway, even if they are not in this committee. Call them on any bill that interests you. With the number of them, I'm sure there are some on which you would want to be heard.

They are your representatives, your voice on what becomes law; they should hear you.

More Utah Haze

In the Salt Lake Tribune: LDS open to liquor change

"The effort to do away with Utah's private club law received a major boost Wednesday, as LDS Church officials told Republican leaders they would be amenable to an alternative put forward by Utah's hospitality industry."

As a side note in this article about the liquor laws discussed by "GOP legislators and LDS Church officials Wednesday", the Common Ground initiative was mentioned:

"Officials did not specifically address a series of proposed "Common Ground" bills that would extend some rights to same-sex couples, except to refer lawmakers to their previous statements on the topic."

Why take the time to clarify the LDS affirmative position on liberalizing alcohol laws but not where they know people are hanging on their every word for more clarity in their opinion? They know their "previous statements" are being taken in a hundred different ways. They don't need to reference specific bills or even the common ground initiative by name, if it's a face saving thing. I'm sure they know that all they'd need to do is what they've done for alcohol laws. All they need to say to sway some lawmakers is that what they said in the Prop 8 fight in California is also what's right in Utah, otherwise capitol hill takes it as "only in California". So why?

If I could get close enough to the men in power I'd be begging. Real families and children are hurting because of the laws here. This is much more important to Utah homes and families than a guy in a bar being able to buy a drink without first buying a club membership, isn't it? Not that I don't think our liquor laws are ridiculous in parts, but why do bar goers get a big discussion but my husband and my kids get a side note?

I have a hard time figuring out why the LDS church leaders are okay clarifying that they're okay with making it easier to get a drink in Utah but not health care for homemakers. Personally, equal access to health insurance alone would be a huge help to our home and our ability to take care of each other. Making job and housing discrimination on orientation illegal will strengthen many homes too.

It's just tough living here, you know? Knowing my family's legal fate is decided in significant part by such meetings, by a Church to which I do not belong. The sense of helplessness in defense of my family and the frustration it breads is another sort of pollution I take in too much of while here. I think I can feel it take a toll, every bit as much as our polluted air.

Can't those Ca Supreme Court Judges hurry up and decide, so that we can finally decide where best to head? Man, I can smell the ocean breeze of our old home if I think hard enough.

Dear Friend....

Rob called me yesterday while I was at work and asked me if I was a straight, anti-gay rights spy, like some mix between Ted Haggard and James Bond. Had he been sleeping with the enemy?

Now, I want to be clear. I am not straight. I have never been straight. I don't even have a wide stance.

While I have many straight friends, who I love with all my heart, I do not even condone their lifestyle or encourage that perverted predilection under which they suffer. Really. I'm so moral that I want to keep them from or annul the legal rights that strengthen their families (or at least that's what it would seem us gays were out to do by what Rob told me next).

After I assured Rob that I was truly gay (by reciting Olivia Newton John's part to"Hopelessly Devoted" from Grease, backwards), it came as a surprise that Rob was referring to a letter, addressed to me, from the Sutherland Institute, one of Utah's many groups out to harm our families in the name of Family(TM).
Click on it to better see the full text.

How sad and disturbing is that? You should have seen the donation card that came with it too. For 5K you can help them make decisions on how to best legally hurt us and our kids. What a bargain.

I am, of course, kind of surprised to be their "friend" and to be invited to such an event. Maybe I should go and bring all my friends, as they suggest :-). Hey, it's free; we should all go!

Seriously though, it may be educational to just sit there quietly and listen in order to hear what arrows they have waiting in their quiver, ready to hit my home. It would be educational... but difficult.

For example, I guess they are now calling the Common Ground Initiatives a dire threat to Utah's man-woman marriage law, one for which they need a bunch of money? What else could it be? Nevertheless, these bills don't touch Utah's man-woman marriage law, seem to at least be not objectionable to the LDS church (I just wish they'd stop this and say so), and they would help many Utah families and children.

It is disturbing to know these people will be getting together, scheming about how get money to best legally harm my most sacred institution, the people I love most and am absolutely obsessed with protecting. It can keep a man up.

They'll do it while imagining righteousness and God's blessing; imagining they know what being gay means. They'll do it while pretending it's moral to harm us in a way they'd never want their family harmed. They'll use words like "defend" while they attack families, and call our hope for equal treatment under law an "attack", as though taking our families' tax dollars puts no responsibility of equal treatment on their shoulders. They will say we are against traditional marriage when nearly every marriage we respect and support is traditional. They'll hope to hurt our children under another name, will probably insult them as morally deficient as the LDS press room recently did, and pretend it's all for the good of "the children". They'll believe it like a faith, with the best of intentions. And, frankly, that sucks too :-), because I know they aren't all bad folks, and I don't even get to blame it on evil or indulge in anger.

My best option is to just listen and try to react as best I can... Things like this really do make me feel like the stick gatherer. We don't share the same faith with these people; it often seems we don't even speak the same language. What I see as glorious in family--the dedication, the sacrifice, the love--they see as trash, or as something to fight, if the wrong anatomical shape is attached to it. Nevertheless, I'm caught here, and they will ditch the Golden Rule and force my home and even minority churches to live by their faith in law, if they can. And in Utah, they can.

Anyway, Sutherland Institute, nope. I'll not be sending you money to pay you to "fight to the bitter end", whatever that means for my home.

Eh, they will get something back, though. Rob stuck their return envelope in the mail with some coupons in it; he donated a little :-). At least that postage won't go to funding their righteous crusade again us enemies of proper society.

Common Ground Initiative in Moab

We just got back from a Common Ground Initiative Rally in Arches National Park. As a result, I've come to believe all activism should be performed in national parks: you get in for free and no one could argue with the scenery.

I wish I could feel more optimistic about the prospect of these bills. For those who don't know, they would:

1. Give our families equal access to health care. Personally, health insurance is killing us, as we can't all be on the same policy.
2. Keep us from being fired from our jobs or kicked out of our homes for the makeup in anatomical sex of our families.
3. Allow, say, stay-at-home parents to sue someone who kills the breadwinner of a gay couple. Right now the spouse in a gay marriage in Utah has no recourse and many would likely just end up on government assistance if, say, medical malpractice killed their loved-one.
4. Create a domestic partner registry to which the above rights may be attached.
5. Finally to get rid of the "substantially equivalent" part of Amendment 3 which may stand in the way of all of the above.

Please; contact your state representatives; I know mind will soon be sick of me :-).

However, the LDS church as backed away from supporting any of these, and without them the legislators will not help us in Utah. Even a statement of non-opposition for same-sex domestic partnerships, as they did for California, would be a huge help for our families here, but, if the blogs and the editorials are any measure, this is nearer amusing to many in the church than a chance to find some common ground and help strengthen minority families.

Is it just me or do many LDS here still feel like they were the victims in the Proposition 8 events? No matter how hard they make it on our homes or debase our marriages or even our children, I fear that will be the case, especially since forcibly divorcing a family in law from their most sacred union doesn't even seem to register as carrying much weight in some of their minds. Now they can keep us from victimizing them again by keeping these rights away from us too? Or do some feel this is a tit-for-tat thing? But, eh, such worldview of persecution is a strong, ingrained part of our local culture; I can't really get mad. It's just sad, and hard to understand why they won't stop, consider the real people in our families, and trust in the Golden Rule.

Nevertheless, even if it all comes to nothing, there was great worth to us in being among those who didn't feel my family was something to fight, all under such a beautiful backdrop.
I thought this was symbolic/kind of funny: as the pro-gay rights rally was hiking up the trail, a Mennonite couple was going the other way.
After the rally we went to a couple other arches:
We went with another gay-headed family that has three kids about our boy's age. By the look of things, I think their daughter may end up marrying Brian and end up with the first children who have 4 doting grandpas. I wish I felt okay showing a picture of the two... adorable.

Anyway, we took them up one of our favorite canyons (see last year).
The next day we went on a hike with Rob's aunt, to another favorite ice skating rink.

As I had to assure my parents, the ice there is much thicker than it looks :-).

Anyway, I wish I could quite you, Utah. You're just too pretty, or handsome in my case I suppose. The Common Ground Initiatives may be a long shot... but I can't help but hold out hope for the state that will always be my home, no matter where I have to take my family.