My Neighbor and Me

I'm starting to feel I'm focusing too much on the LDS church here; I'm hoping to fix that.

The thing is, as a young kid the LDS church was like a friend of a friend, or a friend of family. Eh, call him Larry, Larry Daysaints. He ran the neighborhood, and on whole was a pretty good guy. I liked and revered and followed his father, Bob Protestantsen, and grew up in a school with Bob as my teacher (stick with me here :-)). I suppose I wasn't really clear there was a difference between the two men at such a young age.

When Larry told me there was a difference, though, I decided to give him a shot. I befriended him, then I revered him, and then I believed his every word. I'd come to find though, I couldn't trust his every word and so returned to following Mr. Protestansen. For a while, in my teens, I thought Larry had evil motivations, in his trying to pull me away from following Mr. Protestantsen, but eventually concluded that the Daysaints had good hearts and were just honestly mistaken. After all, I started to notice very similar problems with the older Bob. I eventually decided to not believe everything either of them said.

Then I went through puberty and found I wasn't like the rest of the boys. Bob and Larry would have had a problem with that, but Larry and I had already cut ties and I knew Bob had problems of his own. So who cares what they think, right? And that was that for many years.

I got married, and we moved to get my MS in California. I hardly noticed we left Larry and Bob in the old neighborhood, and really got comfortable rarely realizing being gay was an issue any more pressing than my eye color. Still, I had fond feelings for both old neighbors, and in fact still respected them from afar (or respected what I remembered of them).

Then it came time to become parents and we wanted to raise our kids around family, and so we moved back to Utah, back to having Larry as our neighbor, which I naively didn't give much of a worry. Outside my neighborhood, Larry controls very little and I was used to that, but in Utah it's different.

So we were blessed with children, and suddenly I started hearing rumors, or more accurately I started noticing it much more. Larry smiles to our face and says horrible things about me and my husband to the other neighbors; it turns out he always had and it just didn't hit me hard when it was just some old guy spouting off about something he knew nothing about, but, when aimed at my marriage and kids, that made a difference. And yes, I know, friends had told me he was a jerk but I thought that was just a temporary mistake or a lapse on Larry's part; we all make mistakes.

Then he started putting insults right to our faces, lawn signs in his yard aiming at us. It was not just in his private neighborhood meetings anymore, and, worse, he began publicly insulting our kids. Of course he claims it's all for our own good, constructive criticism, tough neighborly love or something, but who does he think he's fooling, right? How would he like it if I treated his family like that? I got upset, and told him we're officially not friends anymore, but, of course, he didn't much notice.

Then--would you believe it--Larry starts asking the neighborhood to work to harm my husband and kids and many other families of friends we love. He's telling us he doesn't hate us or disrespect us, no; it's just that families (if he'd even use the word for us) like ours, having equal rights to Larry and his wife, well, that upsets him. He says he's just defending family and marriage by harming us and doesn't get how his choices could ever be disrespectful or immoral. He can't seem to understand we are all for marriage and family too and to insinuate we are not... well, I'd rather be called faggot to my face. It all came to a head when he made himself instrumental in an attempt to annul my legal marriage last November, with the help of other neighbors and distorted facts about what has happened in neighborhoods where we are treated with equality.

Then, when I confronted him about his behavior, he acts all offended and goes on about his rights and being persecuted, complaining about my incivility and lack of respect for him. Weird, right?

Anyway, I digress.

So I've got this bizarre long-history with this neighbor I once liked but who has now turned himself into a great source of harm for my family, and I don't know what to do with it. For months since the election, I find myself waking up about once a week at night worrying what he's going to do to my family next. I know, behind the scenes, he's still plotting against us. It's making me paranoid. He's already expressed interest in our children, and has shown his power and influence with his interest in our marriage. But it doesn't have to be that big; what if he starts spreading more lies to my family? Instructing them? Many of them are torn and some will do whatever he tells them. What about what he's doing to the gay children in his home? I hate to bring it up in a lighthearted metaphor like this, but what gay man in Utah doesn't know a kid who killed himself here?

If Larry was feeling sad because I stopped taking notice of him or what he had to say for all those years, he should be pleased; he has tight hold of my attention now.

And that's what I'm hoping to change. I'm thinking of him too much. It's like the year our mailbox was blown up, Christmas decorations slashed with a knife, and we were left, on our doorstep, a cryptic handwritten letter about us turning to Christ, in Spanish (true story :-)); each little bump I heard at night, sounded like those vandals trespassing again. Similarly, after our last year with the LDS church, I'm thinking too much of them trespassing into our home, our most sacred unions again. Sure, we have real conflict but I'm also seeing conflict where there is likely none.

I want to stop that and go back to our old neighborly relationship, before all this. I want my neighborhood back, to feel like my home again, not some bully's territory. I want neighbors who say they're sorry when they harm us, instead of "stop hitting yourself". I don't want to be suspicious anymore of people who count Larry as a friend. I even want to like quirky old Mr. Daysaints again, if he'd just live and let live.

So, while we have to be in his neighborhood, I'm going to try to turn my attention away from his every insult and political maneuver, on this blog and in the real world. I'm going to try to ignore proclamations in my brother's home, and CTR rings on my child's finger... treat it like the inappropriate words that come out of the mouths of my older relatives. It's certainly not that I find the behavior any less objectionable, but I don't want to spend as much time thinking about it, worrying the next time Larry walks by he'll salt our lawn, or tell my children they're of inferior moral character to other kids, or something. We'll deal with it when he does.

So what do you think is a fair goal? Only one post about Larry per week, month? How does one go back to those pre-prop 8 days, anyway? Seems a lot of us around here want to know.

Proclamation

Last Sunday we were invited to my nephew's mission homecoming. While several of my siblings' families have had sons return from missions, I think this may have been the first we were personally invited to by the parents. To be clear, I don't think we were not invited to other such events out of hostility. I imagine LDS church functions are a difficult subject for some family to bring up, even if we see eye to eye, and so they assume we'd prefer not to come or that we'd just hear about it through my parents and decide to come or not. Heck, things get lost in the mail and as phone messages too. Point is, the specific personal invitation made me feel we should go to this.

Going, though, presents a problem for us too. While I want to celebrate my nephew's return, there's the whole issue of a church that threw the first stone, one that teaches that my family is inferior, fights hard to politically harm the people I love most, and even tells its members our children are defective and questions their moral character... I can't celebrate my nephew's conversion of people to that way of thinking, any more than a mixed race family could celebrate the same back in the 60's when the LDS church was aiming at them. I also can't feel right taking my children into a church building and telling them to show respect to a place in which they and their family are slandered and plotted against.

I wish things were as they were when I came out and there wasn't this whole history of LDS involvement in Proposition 8, or Amendment 3, or on and on. Back then, going to a LDS church building would not have felt such like a betrayal to my home. I can take sitting though doctrine which I don't buy, but when that doctrine has aimed to do such harm to us, how can I take my family there, right? How could I risk my kids hearing something like what was heard at my sister's wedding?

So, it's another tricky family/faith decision. We ended up with a good compromise, though. We made the two-hour drive two-hours late, missing the church service, and meeting up to celebrate with my family back at my brother's home.

One thing, however... I walked into my brother's home and noticed he had framed and hung the "proclamation on the family" in his kitchen. He's in a new home, but I never noticed this in his old home. I suppose he must have it up, being the bishop, or maybe he agrees with it wholeheartedly now. Maybe he interprets it unconventionally as innocuous when it comes to his brother's family, as some around these parts have suggested.

I don't know; I was under the impression he was all for equal rights. As with that wedding, I wasn't about to make an issue of it there, though. All I know is that that "proclamation", with all its subtle and not-so-subtle language, has been often used as a weapon by church leaders and laymen alike against my family. It has been used to try to excuse harm to those I love most and to insult my children and my marriage on both real and supernatural scales. And it's framed and it's hanging in my brother's home.

I have to wonder how they'd react if I hung a proclamation in my home that states the unions of my siblings are inferior, threatening them that they will be "accountable to God" for violating "the family". What if I framed a paper and hung it in my kitchen, for them and their children to see, that encouraged governments to resist support of LDS marriages and families? I would, of course, never do that. I, of course, love and respect their families, but would they even come to my home, if I were similarly "pro-family"?

I'd like to think it's all unintentional. Who knows?

But, yeah. I'm not whining about anything new here. It's difficult. It's complicated. For all. Et cetera...

To be clear, I'm not saying I'll refuse to go to my siblings' homes and risk alienating family that has no ill intent because of such displays; we'll just be there feeling we are merely tolerated, which may, in fact, be part of the message intended by those encouraging LDS members to display such a thing. Also, yes, I know it could be a lot worse, and I know it is for many gay men and women.

It would just be nice to go without the wedges that strangers in the LDS HQ push down into my family with these "pro-family" proclamations from on high. It would be nice to just have the simplicity of typical family differences ;-).

Wedding Crasher

Well, it didn’t take long for trouble to find me back here in Utah.

I did not sleep all night on the red-eye flight back from Hawaii, and my sister was getting married the day we got home. By the time I had to be there for pictures I was in that fuzzy sleep-deprived state that I remember from our boys’ infancy. Which is fine; the twins taught me I can go months in that state :-), and I was happy to be there.

All my brothers and sisters were there and it was nice to see them outside the usual holidays; we met up in the mezzanine of the Joseph Smith Memorial Building. My sister, the bride, was to be married there and not in the temple as her first husband died long ago. That building holds very fond memories for my family. As a kid we used to go there for dinner every Christmas Eve, back when the LDS church ran it as a hotel (with a big bar and all :-)). I would come to find, however, I don’t much feel welcome there anymore.

She looked beautiful, and, as I always do at weddings, I got caught up in the emotion of it as our dad walked her down the isle. But then everything went downhill. The LDS Bishop, literally in his first sentence, started out by going off on marriage for gay couples . He said that the institution of marriage was under attack, and “the family” was being “mocked”, but look how lucky his audience is to know the value of a real marriage. He read from the President of the LDS church, quoting that marriage between a man and a woman is the only union that’s ordained by his God, and I’m fine with him thinking that, but he went on to say how only that union contributes to society and only that union raises healthy children. The guy was disparaging our children, and my marriage, and as a matter of course in his wedding ceremony for my sister. Furthermore, this sister has a newly out gay child, who I could see tense up as the man spoke.

I'm left wondering if this is part of other LDS Bishops' marriage ceremonies?

I actually considered I might be dreaming, being so tired and out of sorts (who'd do that while performing a wedding, right?) but a hand on my leg by another sister brought me back to knowing this was an actual event. She, a very faithful LDS woman too, leaned over and whispered she loved me and my family and that she believed my family matters too. She wanted me to know the Bishop wasn’t speaking for her. Just then I noticed my mom, a couple seats away. I heard her voice and looked over. She was visibly upset, and I could hear her voicing her objections to our dad. It sure did feel like a dream.

I tried to get back into the spirit of things as the Bishop finally got away from political attack to the actual ceremony. This was my sister's wedding and I knew where she stood and I'd not let this jerk get in the way. Funny thing is he actually gave some of the same advice I do. Then we all cheered as the couple was presented and the bride was kissed. But I knew that was not the end of it.

As the crowd dispersed, I decided my sister's wedding day was not the time to get into a political argument with her bishop. I just hoped she was too nervous to notice what he said. However, I know my dad as well as anyone, and I knew he was going to come to a different conclusion. I searched him out in the dispersing crowd, to head him off. I've had to get between him and anti-gay advocates before. I’m grateful to have such an advocate and friend in my father, but I asked him to not make an apparent issue of this at the wedding and he agreed he’d only take the Bishop aside quietly. That he did, and it was a good thing it was done in a quiet corner of the room, as the Bishop said worse and made it clear he wasn’t misheard or misunderstood.

As they were at it, an in-law came up and apologized for the Bishop, and I realized everyone probably felt the hostility in the man; it wasn't just my close family. Worse, as I went up to give the bride a congratulatory hug, she apologized as well and said she was thinking of us through the ceremony because of the guy’s words. That’s what burned off my dreamy haze and finally got to my temper. I’m so used to such “loving” assault on my family from the LDS church that I took it as just another arrow from just another sanctimonious stranger… but to think this worry had to be brought into my sister’s mind during her wedding, when she should have been thinking of her union and the importance of the ceremony. That’s just horrible; real pro-family and pro-marriage of the guy, right?

Of course, some family didn’t acknowledge any of that. I bet some agreed with that Bishop, maybe not with all the legal ramifications of their church’s position but with the spiritual superiority of their family over their brother’s, at least. They were off socializing together, probably thinking it unfortunate we had to hear the tough love “truth”, but that it was good for us? It doesn't really matter.

In the crowd I eventually ran into my mom and she gave me a hug and I could see she had been crying. I was glad to see it wasn’t just for me as I’d hope she knows I can and do take far far worse than that :-). She was with her gay grandchild and was upset about us both sitting through that. I told her not to worry about me, but I know, as a parent myself, that’s kind of useless. Regardless, gay relatives and supporters eventually coalesced at our table, and we enjoyed the company and the rest of the evening. But the wedge in our family was palpable.

I often defend my LDS family against non-LDS family, even before I came out and even as an agnostic. It’s how they make it through the day and how they feel significant and secure in the world and their hoped-for world to come. I remember what it’s like and if they enjoy thinking obeying some organization during their brief time here will lead them to being immortal gods and goddesses, why should anyone pull threads from that sweater? But when those beliefs become attached to others that hurt and demean my family and my kids, I have a hard time trying to get the side that supports and loves us to see the point of view of the other.

I still, however, try to keep peace. Should I? Half way through the night a very LDS brother-in-law approached me and told me he has always respected the way I’ve juggled family in this area, but it kind of made me feel like I've sacrificed what's right for peace. Should I have felt like my dad and went for confrontation, even at my sister's wedding?

I’m in an odd position in my family. So often my home is the issue, though not the only issue, that causes LDS family to harden up and, as often, I’m the one who tries to connect both sides. It feels as though, perhaps with too much self-importance, that if I’m not the ambassador and just treated those family members like I would any stranger who supported a group that attacks my family, then a future split in the larger family would be on my shoulders, my fault. I’m a bone of contention that thinks at least he can be the link that brings together the two beasts pulling on it :-).

Or maybe any bone of contention is just a source of, well, contention and all would be happier if it snapped, halted attempts to smooth over? Even though I can’t get angry with the other side—I know they’re under significant psychological pressures here—maybe, again, we should act as though we were angry, for the sake of both sides. I mean, I’m sure most LDS at that wedding would have been much happier to have only folks there who’d nod in agreement when told how superior their families and children are, and I don’t want to be an issue at my sister’s wedding.

I also hate how it can bring out a similar ugliness in me. I love my sister, and respect and support her union, but I admit the thought crossed my mind: how can her Bishop insult our 16-years together and 6-years of parenting, while performing a marriage after for a person who has divorced twice and is well past the age to raise children. I adamantly want her to have all the same legal rights and privileges and responsibilities I want to have for my family in marriage, but, if the Bishop wants to argue which marriage will produce more for society, then these “ideal family” arguments cut both ways. Fact is we should not be measuring our sibling’s or our neighbor’s marriage like that and especially on bias about inborn traits like sex, but that’s the weapon the LDS church wants to use here, making it hard not to pick it up as well. I regret feeling that temptation.

Anyway, how should people socialize with siblings who choose to belong to a group that teaches that their children are somehow defective? Should people even go to a building owned by a group that wants their family to be legally invisible or second class because of their sex, and has said so with pride, pretending to defend from us what we have and cherish too? What if the issue was race and not sexual anatomy? We know this same church was doing this for race once before; how was that best handled back then by those families?

I still don’t know, and, along with my sadness, I will have some relief in making the question less important once we move from family.

It’s just sad.

Salt Water

We did that Prop 8 interview with Reed Cowan yesterday. Each time we do anything like this I try to brace myself. Questions like "What does family mean to you?" or "Tell me about how you became a parent." or "What does your relationship mean to you?" are common. With such topics that slight cramp at the back of the throat eventually seizes and I can't get a thought out that's not too heavy with emotion.

That's another benefit to being a gay man, though. I can be as masculine as I am by nature, and still get emotional without feeling I have to hold up some masculine stereotype (I don't even have to watch the Superbowl today!). Example, I let loose a tear in Batman, The Dark Knight, for goodness sake :-) (when the convict takes the remote on the ferry...). In short, I'm a crier, but don't really care much to control it in most instances. I spent too much time when coming out trying to hide how I was feeling.

However, that makes me a bad interview, and so, in those instances, I've tried to learn ways to hold it down again. I've taken to just telling people interviewing me right off the bat they can ask what they want, but stay away from emotional questions about family until the end if they want anything useful.

Now, there is a certain reason anyone with kids and who knows much about Reed would find their emotions near the surface around him. I don't want to go into that; suffice it to say it was an emotional setting from the start.

He was great. He just let us speak, and normally I'd have been okay, but my parents went before us. My mom got emotional, talking about what we go through in this state and I expected that; I could keep composure with that much. However, my dad, he rarely loses composure but he did yesterday. That finished off the flimsy interview barriers I've reconstruct during our last 4 years in this fight. When it was my turn, I'm afraid I left them with nothing usable.

The potent thing is that you don't really know how much your parents love you when you're growing up. You can't. You know they love you, but not what that means for a parent, not until you feel it yourself. And when you are a parent, your focus goes to the love for your kids, and you kind of stop thinking much about the love from you're parents. My parents were and are wonderful parents, and as an adult they are two of our best friends, people we love spending time with. I may not take enough time as an adult to realize or enjoy that love they have for me, but, recognizing what I have for my sons in them, it was more than I could hold in.

At the end they had everyone say their name and what they want. My parents said for me and my family to be treated fairly; I said (or tried to say :-)) to be able to protect my family like any one else, to have my family treated in the way our LDS neighbors want their families treated. It's that same sort of drive, pointing that particular love forward, into the next generation; I wish my composure stood a chance in front of it when also in front of a crowd, but am also kind of glad it doesn't.

Anyway... getting a little too serious?

Why stop mid-post though, right?

I also want to take some time here to give some kudos to Scott and Sarah. We stopped by their home last night on the way back from the interview. They are very good hosts, and all that was appreciated. Thank you.

But the thing that strikes me most is the fact that they've generously given a nonjudgmental place to relax and fit in for gay LDS who either just want to hang out with others like them, or those who desperately need a break, a place they don't have to hide who they are. Sometimes families of gay kids in these parts lose track of that familial love for a time, or cause distance thinking it's love, and it's a great comfort to me to know people are there to catch them. To open up your hearts and home like that is impressive, and inspiring to me. Whatever the blog equivalent of applause is, I'm doing it.

Pocket Change

It turns out the LDS church just reported about $190,000 in donations to pass prop 8. I blogged on the details of that at isocrat, here.

The funny thing is I knew they gave more than the couple grand they were initially claiming; everyone did, right? But I find I was happier with the illusion.

Rob's mom is staying with us and I find this news to be kind of upsetting. That's where some of her money went: to deciding on those commercials, threatening California parents that children in school may talk about the same sort of family that her grandkids have, if they didn't act to forcible divorce her son and I.

I know the LDS people we love didn't mean to pay for such. I know most don't even want to. However, many believe it's like a supernatural necessity to give money to the LDS church. I get that it probably breaks them up too, and I'm not angry at her for it; though I'd much rather family not fund legally hurting family. Can't the LDS church set up separate accounts :-): one for families who don't want to pay to harm the gay couples in their clan, and another for those who don't mind?

Anyway, I just liked it better when the illusion was that their inadvertent contribution was more like a fraction of a cent, than anything that could be shown in real coins.

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.

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.

Art at BYU and the Worth of Words

With the recent backpedaling of the LDS church on the issue of "certain rights" for our families, my view of the organization has changed. I once viewed the organization as just a bunch people in a tough position under yet another strong meme's weight, trying to do what's right. History is full of such folks and I've a hard time blaming them.

It seems some wrong, though, in one way or another, is being consciously excused now. It seems they did a political calculation and decided they had to throw us a bone in some states so as to not appear against equal rights even when they were, for PR reasons. That leaked internal LDS memo already revealed as much, I guess, and I should have known. It's just difficult to actually see people act that way, particularly when you know first hand how well people of various and diverging groups could get along in a straight forward manner.

I guess the annoyance is that the harmful political actions are more than enough. The refusal to take responsibility for how they so directly hurt families and then to claim the organization is fine with some rights for our homes in CA and then refuse to live up to those words where it's not politically necessary to do so, here in Utah, is added to injury. It's an attempt to use the appearance of good, pro-equal rights, in order to do legal harm and I'm sure many Californian LDS voted for Proposition 8 under the impression they, as their church told them, were not hurting anything but, possibly, some percentage of the gay community's feelings; I've read several of such account.

Now, though, I'm beginning to look at their talk of love and inclusion the same way as their talk of rights and respect.

I just read this blog post by Michael. It's about his art project at BYU:

"These portraits are of BYU students who identify themselves as homosexual and a person that supports them. This support person could be a family member, friend or may also identify themselves as homosexual and both people may provide support to each other. I have not included labels with these portraits as I feel that labels only create separation and division and further ungrounded stereotypes. We never know who may identify themselves as homosexual and I felt that not labeling these images would force us as a society to question what it is to be homosexual."

The message behind such an exhibit seems to be quite a smart and potent message of love and inclusion, two things the LDS press releases and pamphlets have been ostensibly offering gay members. These were not images advocating gay sex or anything near that; to me, they just seemed to say gay people exist and they are part of our community.

The message behind its censorship by those in charge, though, is another potent message.

The LDS organization has gotten good PR out of their moves away from their harsher past, even in the gay community, but when the actions don't match the rhetoric, it seems to show the nice rhetoric to be a simple tool of PR; "love" along with "certain rights" are used to deny equal rights and to continue promoting the idea that merely being gay is something you don't want in your group. It's a tragedy when words like love, respect, and civility are used this way.

I should say, I'm sure this is changing. I'm sure some Bishops are great nowadays and many other members are too; I know and very much respect such folks. It is just becoming more and more difficult to hear the official press releases without increasing skepticism, without wondering if even the person composing them believes what they say in the carefully selected words regarding homosexuality.

Personally, I'd bet those in charge who decided to censor this work did so because they are afraid of the consequences of BYU's new inclusion of gay individuals; they want it in sentiment but practice is another issue. I suspect what I said might soon be coming last year after their change in the Honor Code with respect to gays is right on time--I should have put money on it :-)--the fact that such an exhibit made it up at all may be evidence of that. They probably can see they are being pulled by a power bigger than any one person or organization or community, and I'm pretty sure it'll bring them where they, for now, don't want to end up, at unqualified love and equal rights.

So, actually, maybe such a bit of resistance is, while I'm sure it hurts, a good sign? It is a sign that they see what we see; it's not just me. Open gay people, even if they follow all the LDS rules and support the LDS organization completely, are a threat to the old guard and old way; they are a step along the way and, again, as I posted in April of 2007, the line has been moved and is moving; there are new good cops and new bad cops now. But putting them back in the closet would be putting the genii back in the bottle.

It will just be interesting to see how this and future conflicts play out.

Where We Agree

I attended diversity training again a couple days ago.

This is about the fourth class I've attended in about 2 years. No, I don't keep on slapping the secretary on the behind for a job well done. It's relevant to one of my volunteer responsibilities where I interact with a whole host of other cultures. I have indeed made some mistakes along the way; there's a lot to learn.

One thing we had to do was break into the groups which we felt society would pigeonhole us into, and answer a couple questions:

1. What do I never want to be called again? (I'll just put my contributions, so as not to get near another's privacy):
--fag
--faggot
(With cruel intent. If there is no doubt the intent is benign and is just meant to be, say, a friendly jab between friends, I have no problem, but others will disagree.)

But then I realized there's now a bunch of new words for "fag" that get to me just the same, if not more nowadays:
--anti-family
--anti-marriage
--anti-traditional marriage

These are the PC words our opponents use today, sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly by advertising themselves in their fight against us as "pro-family" and "pro-traditional marriage" or as "defending traditional marriage".

Anyway, that realization caused me to opine on what unbelievably horrible people homosexuals are, yesterday. We're terrible: uncivil, sore losers, religiously intolerant, disrespectful of the rights of others, and a lot more. I've heard gays called all that recently... I kind of miss the good old days of "faggot" ;-).

2. What do I never want done to me again?
--I never want to lose legal rights for my family again; this one hurt more than the others added together and it's still negatively affecting me, physically even.
--I want to never be threatened with bodily harm again, especially with my kids there.
--I never want to work under a boss' anti-gay bigotry again.

3. How do I want to be treated?
This was the point of this exercise. Everyone's answers to #1 and #2 were all very different. But here, from the woman's group to the LDS group to the Hispanic group, everyone's answers were the same, almost word for word.

We all want to be treated "how others would want themselves to be treated". We all wanted to be treated "fairly" and with "r-e-s-p-e-c-t".

The LDS group wrote down exactly what the GLBT group wrote down.

So why, in practice, is this so difficult? I really do want their families to have every right and responsibility ours does, no more and no less. I want them to be able to decide in their own homes and in their own churches what a marriage is. I don't want to publicly label their unions non-ideal or their children as deficient.

I heard the Golden Rule on their list and it was actually kind of jarring, though I know it shouldn't be. I just don't understand why it doesn't go both ways, when we both know how the other would want to be treated and how we'd want to be treated. It's frustrating.

We were asked to make a single goal to change ourselves as we left, and write it down and keep it in our pocket. I'll admit, such symbolic acts strike me as silly. But I did it, and in my wallet right now is a piece of paper telling me that I will drop my resentment towards the LDS organization. The tough part is going to be doing that while still being denied and fighting for those answers to #3. It seems new wounds are being opened each news cycle and many LDS are still fighting to take away even meager rights for our families (I'm looking at you, Mrs. Ruzicka).

Eh, I'll start with my unfair resentment :-).

Mutual Respect and Civility

So we went last night to the rally at the public park but left before the march (my dad said he was going regardless and so we had to tag along to keep him from getting into a fight ;-)). I was absolutely amazed at the turnout (the paper says about 3,000). In all, it seemed to go well, peaceful. I only saw a couple signs on our side that made me wince, which is much better than I can say for what we heard from the counter protesters.

The atmosphere was actually very pleasant, and there was a wonderful sense of solidarity and community, with people from all walks of life from infants to senior citizens; I recommend you read the article on it for specifics. I also see you can watch one of our fellow moho's on tv :-).

In response, the LDS church put out one of their characteristic press releases. It could stand a closer look:

It is disturbing that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is being singled out for speaking up as part of its democratic right in a free election.

Let me try to help explain.

The LDS church isn't experiencing a backlash for "speaking up as part of its democratic right in a free election." We are all for your rights, to speak, vote, marry, have equal treatment from our government, and so on. Try, though, to think of the difference between speaking up in favor of, say, tax reduction for everyone verses speaking up in favor of tax reduction for white people. Maybe think back to when it was racial integration that the LDS leadership was speaking out against. There is a difference.

Simply, what has people upset is your hope to use your vote to take rights away from others. That is bound to cause some constitutionally protected "speaking up" to come back at you, and it's disturbing you find that exercise of free speech "disturbing".

As for being singled out, can you really not see the irony? Of all the problems with marriage, you pick on such an easy target as us, such a perpetual minority as our families and make fighting our marriages just under the importance of tithing. Most of the churches fighting against and for marriage equality do not have a centralized leadership to protest, but the route by which most LDS money got into making all those deceptive pro-proposition 8 ads (which you could have denounced) is clear. The cause can be traced to downtown Salt Lake City. If we lived in the Vatican and it was part of the US there would be protesters there too, but, come on, it's too late to deny the LDS church didn't have a big hand in this, right? You worked hard and did "all you can" to do what you did to our families, right? I mean, your argument isn't that you shouldn't be held morally responsible because other churches were doing it too, is it?

Furthermore, in Utah, the LDS church and many of its members have been behind a whole host of anti-marriage and anti-adoption laws for our community; history here doesn't start with Prop 8. Prop 8, where you took rights we had away, just pushed it over the edge. If not for your "speaking up" (which, yes, of course, you have a right to) our families would be in much better shape here; many of our children could get health insurance and our stay-at-home parents would have security.

We have a right to speak out in our public streets, and at least we aren't wanting to legally restrict your marriages in your private homes and churches, as you've done to us. To me, that would be unconscionable, and so I hope you can rest assured.

Members of the Church in California and millions of others from every faith, ethnicity and political affiliation who voted for Proposition 8 exercised the most sacrosanct and individual rights in the United States — that of free expression and voting.

They did. Millions of others from every faith, ethnicity and political affiliation voted against Proposition 8. The difference is that those who voted for Prop 8 voted to take away some of those "sacrosanct and individual rights," which you finally seem concerned about. Now it's kind of odd you feel entitled to ask for respect for them when you hold them. You'll get it nonetheless--we'll stand up for your right to vote and your right to equal rights--but it's just odd you don't see the irony.

While those who disagree with our position on Proposition 8 have the right to make their feelings known, it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred places of worship for being part of the democratic process.

Again, really? You think people are mad because you were "part of the democratic process"? You have no concept that your actions hurt, in real legal, financial and emotional terms, real people, families, parents and children? You don't see that you've targeted the most sacred institutions for us? Being upset because people gathered at a public park and then walked on public streets around your headquarters, seems to show an absolute lack of empathy and understanding for what you've done to what is sacred to us.

Once again, we call on those involved in the debate over same-sex marriage to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other. No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information.

I wish you believed that. I wish the LDS church acted in "mutual respect and civility" in the first place. But we all know what's been said about our families, and we all know what you've done, and it was far from respectful of us or our families. You can't be taken seriously when you hit a guy and then call "no hitting", right?

Anyway, I hope that clears some things up for the PR department ;-).

Protest

Tonight there will be a protest at the SLC LDS temple.

Valerie Larabee, executive director of the Utah Pride Center, states "Friday's message will be one of hope for steady progress towards equality and fairness - a message everyone can believe in."

I hope she's right, and I hope the crowd keeps civil. Actually, I'm not really that worried it will get out of hand. We know a lot of those in leadership positions and I think I know that they'd keep it peaceful and I feel near sure it will remain that way.

I wish this all wasn't happening, though, and that we all could just live and let live. I also understand you just can't take it without defending yourself. I know first hand the damage done. They have played a huge part in stepping into the affairs of our homes, lives, and churches, legally harming many of our families. In rhetoric, they have insulted our marriages, our families, and even our children, and made it all worse in then asking for our respect for the incivility (for example: Chedner's blog and isocrat's blog). I could see how a peaceful protest outside their church may be a reasonable response.

But, remember who we are dealing with. They are our families, and they are our neighbors, and most are holding good intentions. Yes, they've brazenly broken the Golden Rule, and there is reason to respond, but it will do no one any good personally or politically if we do what they've done to us and start getting in the way of their rights.

Simply, I hope anyone going tonight will consider some suggestions:

1. Please, please let's do not harass anyone going into or out of the temple. We cannot get in anyone's face and we certainly cannot even touch another person (unless it's for a consensual hug, or possibly even a non-french kiss).

2. Let's keep from using the words "hate" and "bigot" on signs. They do not accurately describe the other side, and we, of all people, should know that telling your opponent what they feel directly when they don't feel it is the best way to shut their ears and tell them you don't know what you're talking about. They are "prejudiced" against our families by definition, and they are making choices that a bigot against us would also make, but they (well, most) are not experiencing the emotion of hate that typically goes with the word. In fact, the cloud and the silver lining here is that they feel they are being loving and good.

3. Let's try instead to tell them what they've done to our families, our couples, and our children, instead of telling them we're angry because of it. They know we're upset, in our satanically inspired rebellion against all that is good :-). More and more, though, I'm sure they do not understand, and this may be one more opportunity to get them to hear us. Or it could be just a PR mess; it's up to us.

4. Let's stay off their property. It's theirs, they own it, and can say who gets to be on it, even on that little bit of Paris where our public main street once ran ;-). Anyone has every right to speak at and be on public property; we all certainly have a right to gather and protest. And sure, I know they fight to take our rights and harm our homes, but let's not get into a tit-for-tat; let's show them, by example, what it looks like to respect the rights of others.

--To assure that end, please, let's leave our anger home. If we cannot go there with our calm wits about us, we should not be there. Sadness will inevitably tag along, and that's fine. Righteous indignation? Okay, but anger will likely end in more sadness. Yes, they are doing wrong and doing harm, but they have their reasons. As I always remind myself, being angry at people is as reasonable as being angry at the weather, the main difference being anger at the weather isn't likely to make the weather worse.

Anyway, I hope this all goes well, peaceful. We do not know if we'll be there or not. I can see reasons on both sides. But, as we'll be having dinner a block away tonight, I probably won't be able to keep my curiosity from letting me peak in. If I do it will be my second time protesting at a LDS temple (please note, the first time was a 100% complete accident :-)).

I Can See Better By Candlelight

Last night was the candlelight vigil to suppot LGBT individuals and families. With all that's going on with regards to our local predominant faith, Proposition 8, and our community, it was a needed event.

Before the vigil, we broke bread with some of those who came to support us. There was my parents, my aunt, my sister, and niece (and their dates and spouses). I was specifically touched to be joined by a family of four from our boy's school. It's one thing to have inclusion and acceptance in their school; it's another thing to have active support like that. (If you saw Rob talking to a handsome guy who wasn't me, no worries; it was the dad of this family:-))

We met more friends and family at the rally. It was raining off and on and I was surporised by the significant turn out.

We were also pleased to meet a bunch of fellow blogger there. And okay, I was 5 minuets late to the meeting spot because dinner went long, but where were you, Edgy? I'm beginning to think you're an elaborate webbot or something.

It was a pleasure meeting all of those never met before and still a pleasure to see familiar faces :-). I wish we could have talked more, but I spent the evening chasing children and going between family and friends. Altogether, our kids had to go pee 5 times in that hour! I hardly got to hear any of the talks. That'll teach us about not keeping an eye on the drink consumption at dinner, right?
Still, that really wasn't the point for me; I know the issues. I know why we were all there, what the LDS church thinks, and why we disagree and want to support the LGBT community.

I really just needed to chase my children around a crowd of people who we could count on, people who want a society were families are welcome and the Golden Rule applies. I needed to see that here, in Utah. I needed to be around a crowd that was missing that terrifying ability to "lovingly" damage their neighbors and even their children for religion. I needed to see many people here aren't so willing to pick up the infinite ego by proxy of believing they are doing and know, by book or leadership, what omnipotence and omniscience say is best for another man's family.

Too often I wake too early by the notion that I can't stop those who would turn love into a weapon, ignore evidence and even their conscience, and use strong faith for their excuse--so many people in history have been powerless to stop much worse being done to them under those banners. I worry at those times that I'm not able to protect my family, because there is no good defense from "God says so"; that's why it's used. But last night I got to see hard evidence that many others will have our back, and we have theirs.

And it worked. Yesterday, thinking of the polls and the possibilities and the precedence of taking rights away from us as a group, I was becoming more and more stressed. I walked into dinner last night feeling worried, but went home from the vigil relaxed, and sure the arc will bend towards justice for our families too, some day, even if not Tuesday (VOTE!).

After the talks by the Mormon mothers who put on the event, we all walked around the block in solidarity (funny how such ritual helps so much). We walked a bit, but this is what the view of that looked like while trying to find a restroom for Brian across the street :-):

Utah Mormons Will No Longer Aid Prop 8

A couple days ago the tribune reported:

Church: Utah Mormons will no longer aid Prop 8

While I doubt the headline is completely accurate, there has been a change and I've been wondering about this for a while.

The reason given is:

"It would be more troublesome for Prop 8's public relations if non-Californians were making those calls," said Davis, who teaches political science at Brigham Young University. "If a caller says, 'Hi, I'm calling from American Fork, Utah,' that might be a turn-off to a California voter."

They aren't going to call people because their calls will make marriage equality for our families more likely? Have you ever gotten a political call where the person said "Hi, I'm calling from [not your state]..."?

For all I know every political call I've received was from Bolivia.

Rob thinks the actual reason is fear of having to pay taxes while acting as such a significant political force. But, as I understand it, they're fully within the IRS guidelines.

Why did they think these calls were a good idea and put out a call for them and then change their mind so quickly, though? Even if they did plan to ID themselves as Utahns in their calls, you'd think the negative consequence of that would have occurred to them right off the bat.

Maybe they did rethink the whole thing... but I guess I'm saying I'd like to think the true reason was that they saw the trouble this was causing in families like mine, and they wanted to pull back and doing so in Utah was as much as they could afford. Yeah, it's a little late, and I'm probably being naively optimistic.

I am glad I've less reason to be upset with some of my family, though it's not much when you know they'd just have to move a day's drive and they'd be as active in the anti-marriage equality campaign as possible. Still, it's something... or it might be?

Ug, I'm tired of having so much of my family riding on the choices of strangers.

S

Time rolls down the hill of order, they say... or they might?

No one has, for example, seen a shattered window reassemble assemble itself, and if we did we’d assume we were watching the world rewind, and for good reason. There are simply many more ways a system can be chaotic rather than ordered, and thus, with each time step, black holes decay, carcinogenic replication errors become more likely, and our i-pod ear buds become more tangled in our pockets.

Damnable entropy.

There is no truly irreversible action, in the universe or in our relationships. Everything leaves a mark. It takes energy to melt and reform a shattered window. It takes great effort to even approximate a fraction of justice after an injustice. For some crimes, the act is truly irreversible in any sense. Regardless, all work spreads more entropy. Thank goodness the earth has a tiny water wheel placed into the stream of solar energy radiating into the void, else we’d be... well, we’d not.

Anyway :-), these are the sorts of things my mind wanders to when considering the feeling that something irreversible has happened. I’ve been feeling like this business with the LDS church, Proposition 8, and my family has broken something, irreversibly. With their aims, ads, accusations, ominous predictions, and even literal demonization of my family, that pro prop-8 team of churches has put out a lot of energy, and, by it, many stones were thrown through my extended family and our relationships with LDS friends. By the laws of chance and nature, by the thermodynamics of interpersonal relationships, something valuable and intricate was bound to be broken, right?

I think it has.

I just don’t see some people the same now. I love them; I’ll be polite, but I don’t feel for them what I used to, knowing what they supported being done to my husband and children, acting on orders or not, feeling love and righteousness and good about it or not. They hope to debase and harm in very real terms my family and then think asking for respect for their faith, their motivation sounds near reasonable? You can shoot into a man’s home, hope he understands, and complain if he comes out and decks you? The excuse being you feel, with all your heart, that God wants and will reward you for shooting guns into people’s homes? That’s not an excuse; it’s a statement of guilt, selfishness, and lack of regret.

Sure, it sucks for us both. I understand they feel such motivation deserves respect--every supernatural claim must ask for special treatment, from Scientology to Islam, or they'd never last a day. I wish I could give it to them. Such God-given, moved-by-the-spirit feelings are a dime a dozen, though, all over the world and to many different ends; when the ends are to take rights from so many families, respect necessarily ends.

I've read some research that shows some people's brains are literally built to believe with special spiritual feelings and I know some of my family may be such people. In a way, maybe I'm being intolerant of their build, their nature to be intolerant of us on faith. But my home can only afford to give leeway to them if they can control themselves and keep away from harming us and others first; I wish they could see that. When the Golden Rule is broken, a line is crossed and they make their faith fair game. I can respect faith in, say, that people can become gods, that people can be resurrected, or that bread turns to flesh; all that is fairly benign and I'll keep away. But not the rest, not that they have to legally harm my family. Slapping a label of "Faith" on that makes it no more deserving of respect than any other bit of bigotry; it only drags down the brand name.

And sure, maybe I should be a bit more understanding as there was a day when my whole world was the spiritual, and being moved by unheard voices of the spirit decided all sorts of decisions (one of which was leaving the church that most of these family members belong to :-)). I do understand these feelings can be quite pleasing and assuring to the human mind; it's the hedonism of agnosticism. I'll try to be understanding of their use of them, but it’s just not the same as it was for me last year; something broke.

The funny thing is that I probably have become, with respect to them, as they were with me. All these years, when they were doing it to us, I just never really knew how it felt for them. I’ve always had an issue with their choices, but never felt it was much of my business and I could be happy that it pleased them. I could look at it more like their preference for certain foods than being on a different team. More and more, though, their choices are becoming my home's problem. I love all my extended family, but, for some of them, not in the way family should love each other anymore; I love them the way they love me, without that deep feeling of support for who they are and what they want out of life, when what they want means harm to the 3 most important people in my life. We’ll hate each other’s sin, love the sinner, and be pleasant when we interact… And that’s the way it is; that’s the broken window.

And look here, adding more work to the system just increased the overall entropy, didn't it? I wish the analogy didn't hold :-).

The question remains, though. Could we find the energy to melt the glass down and reform? It can’t be undone, but can it be remade? Don't know; I just know I'm not willing to do it alone.

(Boy, that was supposed to be a short post; guess I needed to vent :-))

We Have Something in Common

This editorial in the Trib made me laugh this morning, and we need that in these parts:

Residual Irritation

Christopher DeSantis writes of being accosted by evangelicals protesting outside of conference last weekend:

"How it warmed my heart to be told that I was worshipping the wrong Jesus, or that every time I opened my mouth, I was speaking for my father, the devil. How decent of these people to come and shed a ray of sunshine on my otherwise miserable existence."

This wouldn't be the same conference in which, when speaking of "defending" man-woman marriage, you were told that "some marital options" are crafted by the devil and lead only to "misery", would it? :-)

To be clear, I think these evangelicals are behaving reprehensibly, but, Christopher, come on man, I think you broke my ironimeter and I'll be unable to discern the truly ironic for weeks, just like Alanis Morissett. See, it's already happened.

But hey, buck up. At least they aren't trying to annul your devil-inspired marriages with a constitutional amendment. Not yet. I'm sure they'd like to see your play book, though, for how you're doing it to gay and lesbian headed families, for future reference. You know; just in case they get in power and have nothing to do with us gays adequately put in our place.

*sigh*

This whole thing can be sad, but really, step back a bit, and it's a passable dromedy, right?

(no, I've not talked to my father in-law yet; he got in late and is still sleeping, but at least I'm feeling much less raw about it and don't fear losing my temper as I may have yesterday)

LDS Videotaped Conference: Go Viral

Young Mormons urged to join fight against gay marriage in California

In their videotaped conference M. Russell Ballard encouraged young member to "go viral" and told them "God will bless you as you do your part."

Why is not it clear to all how dangerous this is? God will bless you for campaigning against my family, for degrading the union of many children's parents? It is, at best, low to use God for such a goal and it's worse to bribe young people with supernatural rewards. The sad part is that, as one can see in many religions, you will get people to act against and alter their conscience with such talk. It's tried and tested.

Robert Chambers, an LDS area authority for Pocatello, Idaho, wrote in a letter to stake presidents in the Rexburg area. "We ask you to commit initially to a minimum of 150-200 volunteers from your stake."

I have to wonder what my brother and my father in-law are asking of their local members? How can I be around them on the holidays without knowing? If they truly do act to so directly to undermine our home, how could they come into it? This is a mess.

"If tolerance is the premise, it should go both ways," Bednar said. "There could be sanctions against us for teaching our doctrine."

This could almost be funny. Again, I've never once asked for your "tolerance", Bednar, and don't care how you or your faith regards my family or what you sanction in your church. Why can't anyone over there see that? We are asking for morality in your actions in the public sphere, in the sphere we have to share no matter how much sharing it disturbs you. We are asking that you follow the golden rule and stop doing to my family in law what you would never want done to yours.

The funny thing is that, with the LDS church's actions, they are making it far less likely that anyone will care to "tolerate" them down the line if they win this battle. If you want the world to do what you say, you should be an example.

Even more ironic is that the main fears they seem to be spreading regarding Prop 8, like children learning of homosexuality in kindergarten, are going to happen regardless. Our children go to school too. The LDS church seems to think gay marriage leads to gay parents, but why then is Utah in the top three states of the percentage of same-sex couples raising children? We have to live together and unless you want to get medieval, so to speak, our children will be going to school with yours and, just like yours, they should be able to talk about their families and your children should be civil, right?

"Because you are here tonight," Clayton said into the camera, "there is hope for the family."

Yeah, "the family"... I'm sure most watching could feel the love, and the sad thing is that that's not sarcasm. You can't get people to act like this without feeling good.

I'm tired of this. Worse than all that, this morning, after I read this and got all riled up, I was notably short tempered with our boys. They were goofing off while they should have been getting dressed for school and I raised my voice when I could have just refocused them. I'm disappointed in myself that I let the yes-on-8 crusade get into my home; it's just hard to hold the line without a couple minutes to digest new news.

I wonder if we can stay here, or, really, if we should? We are here for family, but there is a wedge there now, and the family we need most, my parents, are retired and willing to go where we go. Or maybe, again, I'm just frustrated and it'll look different later. Or maybe it'd be best for us all if I remained frustrated this time. I don't know.

It's funny; yesterday we were driving to soccer practice and Brian asked if we got new rings when his dad and pop got married in California (he wanted to know if the ring was new because I've told him he eventually can have either the my wedding band or the ring I got the day they were born). I told him no, that we only got married again in California to get new legal rights. He said, "so that we can be more safe and you can't break up?"

He was cheery and nonchalant about it, but I thought of what might happen in November and had to recompose myself before I could answer yes without my voice failing. I can't let them know about this threat, I don't want to tell them if they do take those legal rights away, and I don't want them to see my worry. But it speaks volumes that he has picked that much up, right? He gets it. This 6-year-old gets the importance of marriage, when a church of adults misses the point.

Prop 8 Excommunication

This post falls in that between ground, as isocrat.org is not a a gay site as focused on LDS issues as I necessarily am here. But I caught this story last night on the news:

Man faces possible excommunication from LDS Church for supporting same sex marriage

It says, “...you are reported to have participated in conduct unbecoming a member of the church and have been in apostasy."

Andrew Callahan responds by saying, "I am a member of a church that is oppressing people and that just seems wrong to me and I am trying to stop them."

The LDS church certainly has a right to do this along with a right to the consequences and atmosphere within the congregation following such a move. It seems Mr. Callahan began the site signing for something to fight Prop 8. I'm not sure what it took to cause the church to act against him above that, or if there is anything above that (can anyone enlighten me?).

Regardless of the reasons, the press has spread the message. I personally fear how this will weigh on the minds of my siblings and LDS friends who have supported my family in the past. Will they be there the next time we ask?

[sigh] November can't come and go fast enough for me. I need a break.

Ordinary People Support Proposition 8

Most people have probably ran across the Milgram Experiment, no?

Simply, Milgram brought into his lab subjects ostensibly for a test on learning. He also hired actors to play the subjects of the leaning experiment; they were ostensibly the "learner". The subjects were told by the experimenter their job was to be the teacher and to give the learner, held in the next room, a shock for poor performance. As the experiment progressed the simulated shocks were to be turned up by the teacher and went from mild to, eventually, deadly. In short, the majority of "teachers" were willing to subject the "learners" to enough voltage to cause apparent agony, and eventually death, while under the supervision of a trusted authority figure.

These are regular people off the street, willing to torture and murder their fellow human beings. What's worse is that most people could not resist authority.

Migram concludes:

"Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority."

65% of the subjects went all the way to the end of the experiment.

When the experiment was repeated with the "learner" being a puppy instead of an actor, 77% of the subject went all the way to the end.

So what kind of chance does a guy, a "learner" who's truly hooked up to the voltage, have? Particularly when he's trying to get equal treatment for his family and keep his marriage from being debased and annulled, not anything as extreme as to keep from dying (and I'm not as cute as a puppy)?

What are the odds of changing another person's mind, a teacher's mind, and keep them from pushing that button on the voting machine, particularly when the authority figure in their head speaks for God? That's right, God! What chance does a regular guy have?

Sure, I have some sympathy for the teacher's predicament, and how can you judge a human quality most of us own? Most people are susceptible to this.

Nevertheless, they know they're hurting us in ways they'd never want their family hurt, that their actions are "incompatible with fundamental standards of morality". Some of them will excuse their conscience to do it and, as the subjects in this experiment did, some will do it with great regret and hesitation. But most will be damned sure to do it, and regret means little when the shocks are real. The worst part is that our families are not actors behind a wall, undergoing simulated harm. No matter how much they try to talk themselves into thinking domestic partnerships hold the same rights as marriage, we are trapped at their whim and the harm is still real and here.

Closer to home, it seems over a third of the money for Proposition 8 has come from the LDS. I'm simultaneously heartened and sad to think most all of them probably feel they are doing what they should here. I'm sure most think they are doing what's right and by their own free will (if an experimenter just told a teacher to kill a man, or puppy they surely would not choose to; he must see himself as having chosen to be a part of something first).

It's just unique that, in this case, the experimenter is found more in an actual person, than the books or disembodied memes acting as experimenter for other protestants and Muslims and so on. All it'd take is a change of heart in the "experimenter". If one man, the leader of that church, tomorrow told his followers they should fight against Proposition 8, we all know what's right and what's felt to be done on free will would change for most of those activists. Still, the odds of that happening aren't large enough to guess at. Though, I've been surprised with the LDS change from the election 4 years ago to this year, a religion can't change on a dime without hurting its authority.

Eh, some days, not having a leader can be difficult; life is complicated and there are big questions on which most everyone would like guidance. But I think of the Milgram Experiment and many lessons taught to us through history and I'm glad to be unable to say I'm following orders (unless they're from my husband... or, if I'm really tired and off my guard, from my kids).