A federal judge ruling on Utah’s ban on same-sex marriages was deemed to be unconstitutional on Friday, December 20th. Judge Robert J. Shelby, of the United States District Court for the District of Utah, wrote that in his opinion such a law “perpetuates inequality.”
“The State’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason,” Judge Shelby stated on Friday. “Accordingly, the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional.”
This ruling was released just hours after another southwestern state, New Mexico, became the 17th state to allow same-sex marriage on Thursday. It's state Supreme Court ruled that a similar ban there was unconstitutional as well.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has softened its stance on homosexuality in recent years, stating that the known origins of sexuality are not fully understood. The LDS church was not involved in any part of the lawsuit.
"The Church has been consistent in its support of traditional marriage while teaching that all people should be treated with respect," said a LDS Church spokesman.
Nation wide, public opinion on the matter has made an about face over the past 10 years. In 2003, 55% opposed homosexual marriage, with 37% supporting marriage equality. Today, 58% are in favor with 36% opposing the bans -- this according to data compiled by The Washington Post.
In the state of Utah, public opinion on the issue has been slower to turn with 28% supporting legalizing gay marriage in a February 2012 (Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy), while a poll taken at approximately the same time period (CBS/New York Times) revealed 38% support for gay marriage rights nationally.
The large Mormon population is opposed to homosexual activity while supporting a persons right to live his own lifestyle making use of "agency", the ability to choose for one's self. Nationally, nearly two in three Mormons in 2011 said society should discourage homosexual acts, while only one third of those polled in other denominations agreed, (Pew poll.) 63 % of Utahans are LDS. (2007 Pew Religion & Public Life survey.)
I may or may not agree with homosexuals getting married, But I am not one to stand in their way. The constitution seems clear. Humans are born with certain inalienable rights, regardless of religion or public opinion. As long as these judges are studying constitutional law, the law the LDS as a people say they support, Homosexuals must be allowed to marry.
Churches should still retain their right to allow such marriage in their denominations. I would fight for that right right along with the gays right to marry.
What do you think? What do you think the mormon people will do? The leaders of the LDS church? I'd love to hear from you.
This is a blog of news and essays aimed toward gay Mormons who wish to hold the Priesthood of God honorably (Men) or to remain active members of the LDS Church (Men or Women), their family and friends, or anyone who has questions about what it is to be a faithful Mormon, or a Mormon questioning... and gay.
Friday, December 20, 2013
Monday, December 9, 2013
How many of us are there?
How many gay men live in the United States, you wonder? Read on...
Historical estimates have ranged from 2 percent to 10 percent. Ten is what most activists lock onto, it's the number that pops up in my head.
Notoriously, men are not so forthcoming about their homosexual attraction. With that in mind, how on earth are we supposed to get any data? However, someone tried to pull information off of facebook and google and created this essay published recently in the New York Times.
Here is a little map he created as well, indicating the states that are most "closeted". His stats indicate that men are More likely to "come out" in a state that is more tolerant of gays.
Historical estimates have ranged from 2 percent to 10 percent. Ten is what most activists lock onto, it's the number that pops up in my head.
Notoriously, men are not so forthcoming about their homosexual attraction. With that in mind, how on earth are we supposed to get any data? However, someone tried to pull information off of facebook and google and created this essay published recently in the New York Times.
Here is a little map he created as well, indicating the states that are most "closeted". His stats indicate that men are More likely to "come out" in a state that is more tolerant of gays.
Multimedia
"Using surveys, social networks, pornographic searches and dating sites, I recently studied evidence on the number of gay men. The data used in this analysis is available in highly aggregated form only and can be downloaded from publicly accessible sites. While none of these data sources are ideal, they combine to tell a consistent story."
"At least 5 percent of American men, I estimate, are predominantly attracted to men, and millions of gay men still live, to some degree, in the closet. Gay men are half as likely as straight men to acknowledge their sexuality on social networks. More than one quarter of gay men hide their sexuality from anonymous surveys. The evidence also suggests that a large number of gay men are married to women." against homosexuality remains strong, many more gay men are in the closet than are out."
"How deep in the closet are these men? Obviously, it is possible for a gay man not to acknowledge his sexuality to Facebook or surveys but to still have healthy, open same-sex relationships."
I read his article and had a few moments where I looked at things differently. The take-away for me was this: "There is, in other words, a huge amount of secret suffering in the United States that can be directly attributed to intolerance of homosexuality."
Interesting, isn't it? "There is a huge amount of secret suffering in the United States that can be directly attributed to intolerance..."
I read his article and had a few moments where I looked at things differently. The take-away for me was this: "There is, in other words, a huge amount of secret suffering in the United States that can be directly attributed to intolerance of homosexuality."
Interesting, isn't it? "There is a huge amount of secret suffering in the United States that can be directly attributed to intolerance..."
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
"Please help him stop being gay..."
Dear Amy: I recently discovered that my son, who is 17, is a homosexual. We are part of a church group and I fear that if people in that group find out they will make fun of me for having a gay child. He won’t listen to reason, and he will not stop being gay.
I feel as if he is doing this just to get back at me for forgetting his birthday for the past three years - I have a busy work schedule. Please help him make the right choice in life by not being gay. He won’t listen to me, so maybe he will listen to you.
- Feeling Betrayed
Dear Betrayed: You could teach your son an important lesson by changing your sexuality to show him how easy it is. Try it for the next year or so: Stop being a heterosexual to demonstrate to your son that a person’s sexuality is a matter of choice – to be dictated by one’s parents, the parents’ church and social pressure.
I assume that my suggestion will evoke a reaction that your sexuality is at the core of who you are. The same is true for your son. He has a right to be accepted by his parents for being exactly who he is. When you ‘forget’ a child’s birthday, you are basically negating him as a person. It is as if your saying that you have forgotten his presence in the world. How very sad for him.
Pressuring your son to change his sexuality is wrong. If you cannot learn to accept him as he is, it might be safest for him to live elsewhere. A group that could help you and your family figure out how to navigate this is PFLAG.org. This organization is founded for parents, families, friends and allies of LGBT people, and has helped countless families through this challenge. Please research and connect with a local chapter. - Amy
(Thanks to Justin Michael for finding this in the Press & Sun of Binghamton, New York. Amy Dickson writer)
I feel as if he is doing this just to get back at me for forgetting his birthday for the past three years - I have a busy work schedule. Please help him make the right choice in life by not being gay. He won’t listen to me, so maybe he will listen to you.
- Feeling Betrayed
Dear Betrayed: You could teach your son an important lesson by changing your sexuality to show him how easy it is. Try it for the next year or so: Stop being a heterosexual to demonstrate to your son that a person’s sexuality is a matter of choice – to be dictated by one’s parents, the parents’ church and social pressure.
I assume that my suggestion will evoke a reaction that your sexuality is at the core of who you are. The same is true for your son. He has a right to be accepted by his parents for being exactly who he is. When you ‘forget’ a child’s birthday, you are basically negating him as a person. It is as if your saying that you have forgotten his presence in the world. How very sad for him.
Pressuring your son to change his sexuality is wrong. If you cannot learn to accept him as he is, it might be safest for him to live elsewhere. A group that could help you and your family figure out how to navigate this is PFLAG.org. This organization is founded for parents, families, friends and allies of LGBT people, and has helped countless families through this challenge. Please research and connect with a local chapter. - Amy
(Thanks to Justin Michael for finding this in the Press & Sun of Binghamton, New York. Amy Dickson writer)
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Save our children from ENDA! E-mail your congressman now!
I was happy to see that Arizona Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake become the latest republicans to support the Employment Nondiscrimination Act passed on Thursday, 64 to 32.
They joined Sens. Dean Heller of Nevada, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Rob Portman of Ohio, Susan Collins of Maine, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, and Ron Kirk of Illinois, who is the bills co-sponsor.
This is the first time in US history that the U.S. Senate had approved any type of legislation to prohibit discrimination in a workplace environment of gay, lesbian and transgender employees.
Passing a non-discrimination law, though I think they should simply add sexual identity to the laws that already protect based on gender, race and religion, does not encourage a gay "lifestyle". It supports our brothers and sisters, our fellow citizens and keeps them from being hurt.
They joined Sens. Dean Heller of Nevada, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Rob Portman of Ohio, Susan Collins of Maine, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, and Ron Kirk of Illinois, who is the bills co-sponsor.
Ten Republicans and two Independents joined the 52 Democrats to support the bill. Four Senators abstained from voting. They were getting their hair done by straight hair dressers.
This is the first time in US history that the U.S. Senate had approved any type of legislation to prohibit discrimination in a workplace environment of gay, lesbian and transgender employees.
Passing a non-discrimination law, though I think they should simply add sexual identity to the laws that already protect based on gender, race and religion, does not encourage a gay "lifestyle". It supports our brothers and sisters, our fellow citizens and keeps them from being hurt.
Opposition in the Republican-controlled House is strong, so there is little chance the measure will become law. It would be horable if the US passed laws to protect it's President Barack Obama urged the House to take the bill up and said he would sign it.
"One party in one house of Congress should not stand in the way of millions of Americans who want to go to work each day and simply be judged by the job they do," the President said in a statement. "Now is the time to end this kind of discrimination in the workplace, not enable it. I urge the House Republican leadership to bring this bill to the floor for a vote and send it to my desk so I can sign it into law."
The bill would provide the same protections for LGBT workers as are already guaranteed on the basis of race, gender and religion, making in unlawful for employers to discriminate based on a person's "actual or perceived" sexual orientation or gender identity.
ENDA's began in 1994, the first time it was introduced in Congress. Several years later, a version that only protected sexual orientation failed to get by the Senate by one vote. The bill was not brought up again for a vote until 2007 when the House passed the narrower version.
.
"The Speaker believes this legislation will increase frivolous litigation and cost American jobs, especially small business jobs," said House leader Boehner's spokesman, Michael Steel.
Chad Griffin, president of the LGBT activist group Human Rights Campaign, had harsh words for Boehner.
"The Speaker, of all people, should certainly know what it's like to go to work every day afraid of being fired. Instead of letting the far right trample him again, it's time for Speaker Boehner to stand with the majority of everyday Republican voters and support ENDA," Griffin said earlier this week.
Regardless proponents are applauding Senate action.
Several opponents of the measure have some real concerns, saying that ENDA will certainly "have a chilling effect on free speech as well as religious liberty" by requiring secular businesses who have a moral objection to LGBT people to not discriminate against them.
(Yes, people. There are people who object to LGBT people, and therefore, would not hire them. Frankly, I have a moral objection to most lawyers, yet I would hire them if I needed one.)
Here's another goody: The Traditional Values Coalition said that ENDA would hurt kids, and here's why:
"Young students in some states are already being confused by transgender teachers," a fact sheet supplied by the coalition read. "If ENDA passes, students and children in daycare centers all across the nation will be subjected to individuals experimenting with their gender identities."
Let me just gag now.
Friday, November 1, 2013
For a seriously-not-funny laugh...
Please read this, if you can can swallow hyper and ludicrous conservative drivel: http://mormonstories.org/meridian-magazines-are-you-a-liberal-mormon-by-joni-hilton/
Sister Joni Hilton has some repenting to do, and I usually don't take that stance with anyone. After all, I sit with the rest of the sinners and church and hope my God, friends and family will forgive me for the many mistakes I have made in my life. Deriding others for their band wagons is not usually my style, unless that wagon runs down innocent people -- like Sister Hilton's article on "liberal Mormons" did.
You, know. "Liberal Mormons?" They are the group of people that are going to hell based on her recommendations to God and the hierarchy of the church because she disagrees with them liberals, all of them, every single one she has lumped together into a hot balloon that is now hovering over the great abyss.
I do not know Joni Hilton. If I were sitting by her in church, I may not notice, from looking at how she dresses, or how she treats people, what she believes about her neighbors. Based on the essay she wrote in a publication that has since recanted, Sister Hilton is pious and holy-er than you could ever hope to be. She has stored a whole lotta oil for own personal lantern and if she were ever to share, she would first take out a full page ad to let everyone know how spiritual she is.
Please, do not seek out her upcoming book, or look on her website. When she is on Oprah, just turn the station. When she comes out with her own line of Mormon crockery or a calendar of "little reliefs from the worlds best Relief Society President, don't hand her your credit card. Please do not support the kind of close mindedness that comes from her self-aggrandized beautiful mind.
However, if she should come out and blame her essay on her sleeping meds, try to forgive her. She truly may not know what she does.
Sister Joni Hilton has some repenting to do, and I usually don't take that stance with anyone. After all, I sit with the rest of the sinners and church and hope my God, friends and family will forgive me for the many mistakes I have made in my life. Deriding others for their band wagons is not usually my style, unless that wagon runs down innocent people -- like Sister Hilton's article on "liberal Mormons" did.
You, know. "Liberal Mormons?" They are the group of people that are going to hell based on her recommendations to God and the hierarchy of the church because she disagrees with them liberals, all of them, every single one she has lumped together into a hot balloon that is now hovering over the great abyss.
I do not know Joni Hilton. If I were sitting by her in church, I may not notice, from looking at how she dresses, or how she treats people, what she believes about her neighbors. Based on the essay she wrote in a publication that has since recanted, Sister Hilton is pious and holy-er than you could ever hope to be. She has stored a whole lotta oil for own personal lantern and if she were ever to share, she would first take out a full page ad to let everyone know how spiritual she is.
Please, do not seek out her upcoming book, or look on her website. When she is on Oprah, just turn the station. When she comes out with her own line of Mormon crockery or a calendar of "little reliefs from the worlds best Relief Society President, don't hand her your credit card. Please do not support the kind of close mindedness that comes from her self-aggrandized beautiful mind.
However, if she should come out and blame her essay on her sleeping meds, try to forgive her. She truly may not know what she does.
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Gay ads for Mormon men
I just happened to log on to this blog from an others computer and I saw an ad that made me cringe. It was for a gay dating site.
I don't really have a problem with gay dating sites or straight dating sites, or even for the farmers only dating site I have been seeing ads for on TV. Frankly, the farmers only ad's looked like something off of Saturday Night Live.
But I do have a problem with this site that was being advertised on my blog. It showed a half naked man from the back.
Secondly, is that what we have come to as a society? Pornography based (hard or soft) dating sites? Regardless of the gender exposed, it does not say much about our depth of morality or character if ads created for success are based purely on sex and sexual arousal.
Is that how gay men are perceived -- that all we want is sexually based? How cheep do they think we are? Then again, if being gay is the major charateristic we identify with, then we may have caused that to happen, and we can only diswaied that perception by showing them everything we really are -- not just our sexuality, but our humanity as well.
And third, I am sad that some ad guy at a desk in Ithaca, Cleveland or Sacramento thought that my blog was a good fit for such an ad.
Nevertheless, I am trying to get this ad off my site. If it is still up (just look to the left), tell me if you agree with me or not, and if it is down, then be glad for me.
I don't really have a problem with gay dating sites or straight dating sites, or even for the farmers only dating site I have been seeing ads for on TV. Frankly, the farmers only ad's looked like something off of Saturday Night Live.
But I do have a problem with this site that was being advertised on my blog. It showed a half naked man from the back.
The problem was this: First, as a LDS/gay/recommend holding author, I am about giving gay men more options that are in keeping with standards that allow these men to earn temple recommends and to hold and use that priesthood honorably. Soft porn is not one of the options I am promoting.
Secondly, is that what we have come to as a society? Pornography based (hard or soft) dating sites? Regardless of the gender exposed, it does not say much about our depth of morality or character if ads created for success are based purely on sex and sexual arousal.
Is that how gay men are perceived -- that all we want is sexually based? How cheep do they think we are? Then again, if being gay is the major charateristic we identify with, then we may have caused that to happen, and we can only diswaied that perception by showing them everything we really are -- not just our sexuality, but our humanity as well.
And third, I am sad that some ad guy at a desk in Ithaca, Cleveland or Sacramento thought that my blog was a good fit for such an ad.
Nevertheless, I am trying to get this ad off my site. If it is still up (just look to the left), tell me if you agree with me or not, and if it is down, then be glad for me.
Rise up, O men of God! -- Gentle Masculinity
What an interesting article from "Religion and Politics". The following excerpt is from "Why Mormon Men Love “Church Ball” and Are Scared of Homosexuality" By Kristine Haglund | September 10, 2012
GENTLE MASCULINITY
"When the women of the church convene for their annual meeting in Salt Lake City, they are likely to hear things like:
“Sisters, we love you. We pray for you. Be strong and of good courage. You are truly royal spirit daughters of Almighty God. You are princesses, destined to become queens.” And they may be gently admonished to refrain from gossip or increase their self-esteem.
Yet men are often bluntly castigated over the same pulpit for using pornography, abusing women and children, and otherwise failing, as the late Mormon Church President Gordon B. Hinckley declared in 2006, to “‘Rise up, O men of God!’ and put these things behind you.”
Mormons learn early that “maleness” is by nature potentially sexually dangerous. These lessons begin with the Book of Mormon itself. “For the natural man is an enemy to God,” Mosiah 3:19 reads, “and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man.” This “putt[ing] off the natural man” requires a total prohibition of sexual activity before marriage and strong taboos against masturbation.
Obedient Mormon boys are thus excluded from their peers’ conversations about sexual discovery. Participating in the casual misogyny and homophobia typical of teenage boys’ locker rooms induces discomfort and guilt in a boy who regularly hears admonitions to abstain from sex of any kind before his wedding night—with himself or anyone else.
Mormon boys might laugh at or even tell gay jokes, but they cannot brag about how far they’ve “gone with the girl” or what they’re planning to do with their prom dates. For a Mormon boy, becoming a Mormon man means not becoming a man, at least not the “natural man” engendered by the adolescent onslaught of testosterone. This means that, perhaps paradoxically, while most
Mormons would assert that both biology and God establish gender at birth, Mormon men’s experience of masculinity is highly performative. They learn that the natural tendencies of maleness must be subjugated to religious principle.
This performance is taught most intensively during the two years of missionary service that devout Mormon men undertake, most often beginning at age 19. Two-by-two, Mormon men knock on doors or pass out church pamphlets and Books of Mormon on street corners. During their mission, they are instructed never to be apart from the companion. They eat, work, pray, and sleep “in the same room but not in the same bed” with their companion.
Missionaries are even instructed to conduct a weekly “companionship inventory,” the instructions for which read like a self-help book for married couples: “Discuss the strength of your relationship with your companion. Discuss any challenges that may be keeping your companionship from working in unity or from being obedient.”
This intense camaraderie combined as it must be among celibate 19- and 20-year-old men with sexual repression, is Mormon men’s induction into masculinity. In this context of profound homo-social bonding, they learn that masculinity is both a privilege and a danger. It is something to be controlled and sublimated to religious ideals of gentleness that are, in many other contexts, coded feminine.
If, on the one side, the danger is giving into the “natural man”—becoming promiscuous or abusive—on the other side the danger is that one might become too gentle and meek...
The performance of Mormon masculinity is a difficult balancing act, a tightrope walk between poles established by a brutish, hyper-masculine “natural man” and an effeminate gay man."
GENTLE MASCULINITY
"When the women of the church convene for their annual meeting in Salt Lake City, they are likely to hear things like:
“Sisters, we love you. We pray for you. Be strong and of good courage. You are truly royal spirit daughters of Almighty God. You are princesses, destined to become queens.” And they may be gently admonished to refrain from gossip or increase their self-esteem.
Fine and not so fine lines |
Mormons learn early that “maleness” is by nature potentially sexually dangerous. These lessons begin with the Book of Mormon itself. “For the natural man is an enemy to God,” Mosiah 3:19 reads, “and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man.” This “putt[ing] off the natural man” requires a total prohibition of sexual activity before marriage and strong taboos against masturbation.
Obedient Mormon boys are thus excluded from their peers’ conversations about sexual discovery. Participating in the casual misogyny and homophobia typical of teenage boys’ locker rooms induces discomfort and guilt in a boy who regularly hears admonitions to abstain from sex of any kind before his wedding night—with himself or anyone else.
Mormon boys might laugh at or even tell gay jokes, but they cannot brag about how far they’ve “gone with the girl” or what they’re planning to do with their prom dates. For a Mormon boy, becoming a Mormon man means not becoming a man, at least not the “natural man” engendered by the adolescent onslaught of testosterone. This means that, perhaps paradoxically, while most
Mormons would assert that both biology and God establish gender at birth, Mormon men’s experience of masculinity is highly performative. They learn that the natural tendencies of maleness must be subjugated to religious principle.
This performance is taught most intensively during the two years of missionary service that devout Mormon men undertake, most often beginning at age 19. Two-by-two, Mormon men knock on doors or pass out church pamphlets and Books of Mormon on street corners. During their mission, they are instructed never to be apart from the companion. They eat, work, pray, and sleep “in the same room but not in the same bed” with their companion.
Missionaries are even instructed to conduct a weekly “companionship inventory,” the instructions for which read like a self-help book for married couples: “Discuss the strength of your relationship with your companion. Discuss any challenges that may be keeping your companionship from working in unity or from being obedient.”
This intense camaraderie combined as it must be among celibate 19- and 20-year-old men with sexual repression, is Mormon men’s induction into masculinity. In this context of profound homo-social bonding, they learn that masculinity is both a privilege and a danger. It is something to be controlled and sublimated to religious ideals of gentleness that are, in many other contexts, coded feminine.
If, on the one side, the danger is giving into the “natural man”—becoming promiscuous or abusive—on the other side the danger is that one might become too gentle and meek...
The performance of Mormon masculinity is a difficult balancing act, a tightrope walk between poles established by a brutish, hyper-masculine “natural man” and an effeminate gay man."
Saturday, October 5, 2013
Here's to New Priesthood traditions
Some traditions were meant to be broken, like throwing stuff at weddings, denying people the right to vote, and outdoor plumbing.
But I like the tradition of going to priesthood meeting on general conference Saturday. Last week it was announced that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will broadcast the meeting live to LDS men and whomever else can turn on a computer or a TV at home.
I liked dragging my boy to the stake center for a guy’s night out. I appreciated not having to worry about what to wear or how to keep the young men entertained. (Wear a white shirt and listen-up.)
It’s true, our father-son tradition of getting ice cream after the Saturday night priesthood session changed a year or two ago — one of many changes I have dealt with since he started shaving more than I do.
We invited some neighbor boys to go with us, but that wasn’t much of a change. As a parent, I am prepared for more than one. “Wake up, “or “Put your phones away” works just fine in the plural.
There have been other interruptions in the tradition. Several years ago I was part of the priesthood choir that sang in the Conference Center during the October general conference. So, my son and I improvised on the tradition for that session.
We went out the following week and discussed our favorite talks, or the ones that stood out for us over ice-cream. At least I had ice-cream. My son had a shake, a coke, a banana split and a double order of chicken fingers.
The tradition was about my relationship with my son anyway — not where, when or what we ate.
Now we have the option of staying home to watch the live session on Saturday night, and I don’t know how I feel about that. I like the idea that the meeting will be open to more than it ever has before.
I am proud of what has been discussed, and pleased that everyone will get to hear the instruction my church leaders have always given to the men; treat your families with respect, follow the commandments and love your wives.
I won’t be surprised when “Mormon men asked to follow the rules and to be good husbands,” is not in the headlines.
My son and I will be at the stake center come Saturday night. Who knows about next year? This may be the last time all the men get together as the fashion mishaps that we are. It was a nice tradition. But sitting at home in my socking feet will be nice too.
One thing won’t change, I'm pretty certain. Dessert will still be on me.
Hazing at the Laramie Project?
In two days, it will mark 15 years since officer Reggie Fluty found Matthew Shepard tortured, bleeding, hung on a fence in the middle of nowhere and left to die. Tuesday evening, after and during a sensitive performance based on that event and Shepard's own story, a group of Old Miss's athletes decided to yell out "fag" and heckle the actors on the stage.
After being dealt with by the administration, these athletes apologized, but didn't seem to have a clue why they were being called on to apologize in the first place.
According to the play’s director Rory Ledbetter, audience members used slurs like "fag" and heckled both cast members and characters they were portraying for their body types and sexual orientations. Ledbetter later stated that the audience’s reactions included "borderline hate speech."
From USA Today: University of Mississippi officials apologized Thursday for the behavior of a group of athletes among an audience of the play, The Laramie Project. These freshmen used gay slurs and other disparaging comments to verbally harass performers during the production.
Ole Miss Chancellor Dan Jones and Athletics Director Ross Bjork issued a joint statement pledging and investigation of the incident, and plans to work with the response team to address the matter.
"It is clear that some students badly misrepresented the culture of this university," they said in their statement.
The play is based on the murder of Matthew Shepard, a University of Wyoming student who was killed in 1998 due to his homosexual orientation.
In a statement Friday, the response team said, "The task of identifying specific individuals who were purported to have disrupted the performance is difficult because of the dark theatre, and initial reports vary in regard to the frequency, volume and source of the comments or disruption.
Garrison Gibbons, a 20-year-old acting major who was in the play, told USA TODAY Sports on Thursday that the atmosphere at Tuesday's performance was "radically different" from other performances and that actors had heard gay slurs from the audience and laughter at moments in the play that weren't intended to be funny, including a funeral scene.
"They were laughing at lines that spoke in negative ways about gay people," Gibbons said.
Gibbons added that he felt "an incredible amount of judgment and laughter" while delivering a monologue in the play in which his character comes out as gay, including audience members taking pictures of him with their iPhones, which he said "appalled" him. He said the cast was later told after the play's second act that the football players and other athletes in the audience were going to apologize after the show.
Gibbons said he did not want athletes to be suspended for games but rather to learn lessons and help create a better atmosphere for gay students on campus.
Michael Barnett, assistant chair of theater arts at the school and also chair of the Ole Miss faculty senate, told USA Today that a house manager identified the group as athletes:
"The football players were asked by the athletics department to apologize to the cast,” Ole Miss Theatre Department Chair Rene Pulliam said. “However, I’m not sure the players truly understood what they were apologizing for."
The football players’ apology was given by one undisclosed football player on behalf of the entire group.
The whole thing is massively depressing when you take the context of what these kids were yelling out and what The Laramie Project is. Incidents like this one make us question Shepard's legacy and whether we have done enough to make sure that no one forgets what this young man went through before and as he died.
Monday, September 16, 2013
Today's Gay Day -- In the news
I've been reading a bit about the Prop 8 situation from 2008. A recent article claims that the LDS church paid out tens of thousands of dollars in fines for improper procedures concerning its involvement, and that it was fined even more for funding a big hulk of the "yes" campaign.
From what I see, that is not true.* (Please feel free to give me more information) Yes, the church paid $5000. in a fine for not reporting non-monetary contributions to the workers who were supporting the proposition. California law is worded differently, and the church plead guilty to not following the California law.
THIS IS RELEVANT. THE WHOLE THING IS STARTING AGAIN IN HAWAII
As far as the millions and millions that was given to the "yes" campaign? There was money paid -- by a political PAC, not a church group, not the Mormon church, but a political pro-Romney PAC created by Conservative Republicans and business people that included members of the LDS church.
This reporter then lists a collection of people and groups who are pulled from a "secret" list (it's on the Internet, buddy) of groups who gave money to the campaign. Here are a few that were of interest to me from the list they published:
The National Organization for Marriage THIS IS THE ONE THEY SAID WAS FOUNDED BY THE MORMON CHURCH. IT WAS NOT. IT IS A SEPARATE ORGANIZATION LEAD BY SOME THAT ARE MEMBERS OF THE MORMON CHURCH.
Alan Ashton
Focus on the Family
The American Family Association
The Vineyard Group, LLC
Michele Adams Watterson
Roger Boyer
Katharine Garff
Belinda Vandersloot
From what I see, that is not true.* (Please feel free to give me more information) Yes, the church paid $5000. in a fine for not reporting non-monetary contributions to the workers who were supporting the proposition. California law is worded differently, and the church plead guilty to not following the California law.
THIS IS RELEVANT. THE WHOLE THING IS STARTING AGAIN IN HAWAII
As far as the millions and millions that was given to the "yes" campaign? There was money paid -- by a political PAC, not a church group, not the Mormon church, but a political pro-Romney PAC created by Conservative Republicans and business people that included members of the LDS church.
This reporter then lists a collection of people and groups who are pulled from a "secret" list (it's on the Internet, buddy) of groups who gave money to the campaign. Here are a few that were of interest to me from the list they published:
Who gave the $40 million to the "Yes on Proposition 8 campaign"? - Public information from the California Secretary of State’s Office.
The National Organization for Marriage THIS IS THE ONE THEY SAID WAS FOUNDED BY THE MORMON CHURCH. IT WAS NOT. IT IS A SEPARATE ORGANIZATION LEAD BY SOME THAT ARE MEMBERS OF THE MORMON CHURCH.
$1,041,134.80*Princeton, NJ
20 Nassau Street, Suite 242, Princeton, NJ 08542 • Tel: 609.688.0450 • Web: www.nomcalifornia.org andwww.nationformarriage.org
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) gave: $225,000 on 1/22/08, $38,132.50 on 2/1/08, $47,402.25 on 2/18/08, $172,500 on 2/21/08, $108,000 on 2/22/08, $105,000 on 3/7/08, $50,000 on 4/14/08, $25,000 on 4/18/08, $25,000 on 4/18/08, $100,100 on 4/24/08, $25,000 on 4/25/08, $20,000 on 7/30/08 and $100,000 on 10/21/08.
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is headed by syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher, President and Brian Brown, Executive Director. Gallagher has worked for several other organizations before founding NOM. She is best known for being in the center of a (George W.) Bush Administration scandal. She had a $21,500 contract with the Health and Human Services Department in 2002 to help promote the administration’s $300 million “healthy marriage” initiative, but did not disclose her contract and was using her column to promote the program. Gallagher attempted to withhold this information until she finally admitted the conflict four years later. [2]
Due to its sizeable early financial support of ProtectMarriage.com, NOM is chiefly responsible for the qualification of Proposition 8. Their funds made it possible to hire the signature gathering firm of Bader and Associates. Bader then was able to hire hundreds of professional petition circulators to collect the necessary signatures to qualify Proposition 8 for the November ballot. The Protect Marriage Campaign spent $1,227,263 with the Bader organization alone between January and June of 2008.
Alan Ashton
$1,000,000 on 10/28/08 Lindon, UT
Alan Ashton is the co-founder of Word Perfect Corporation and a former professor at Brigham Young University. He is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and a grandson of former LDS Church president David O. McKay.
Focus on the Family
$539,643.66*Colorado Springs, CO
8605 Explorer Drive, Colorado Springs, CO 80920 • Tel: 800.232.6459 • Web: www.focusonthefamily.com
Focus on the Family gave: $50,000 on 12/4/07, $22,259.46 on 1/22/08, $10,834 on 1/28/08, $50,000 on 4/7/08, $250,000 on 6/13/08, $20,000 on 7/24/08, $9,152.63 on 7/29/08, $1,669.37 on 8/6/08, $21,402 on 9/4/08, $4,306.83 on 9/4/08, $1,739.37 on 9/15/08 and $100,000 on 10/28/08.
Founded in 1977 by Dr. James Dobson, Focus on the Family is the most powerful evangelical ministry in the country. Focus on the Family is located in Colorado Springs, CO and is now run day-to-day by President & CEO, Jim Daly, but James Dobson is still the face and voice of Focus on the Family. Their 2005 budget was $129 million and they have 1,300 employees. They advocate creationism and have called same-sex marriage “the most radical human experiment.”
The American Family Association
$500,000 on 7/22/08 Tupelo, MS
P.O. Drawer 2440, 107 Parkgate, Tupelo, MS 38803-2440 • Tel: 662.844.5036 • Web: www.afa.net
The American Family Association (AFA) of Tupelo, Mississippi was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon. He serves as Chairman and his son Tim is President. According to its web site, “AFA exists to motivate and equip citizens to change the culture to reflect Biblical truth and traditional values.” They are established as a 501(c)(3) Corporation and according to their IRS Form 990 for 2007, brought in $22.5 million. AFA owns over 180 American Family Radio stations in 28 states across the country. [3] AFA has led several national boycotts against companies such as Walt Disney (1996–2005)www.afa.net/disney Ford (2005) www.boycottford.comand just launched a boycott against McDonalds Corporation www.boycottmcdonalds.com all due to their support of fairness and equality for gays and lesbians. AFA is currently targeting the Hallmark Card Company because it began selling a same-sex wedding cards.
David Moon
$200,000 on 10/28/08 Alpine, UT
The Vineyard Group, LLC
$160,000Mesa/Queen Creek, AZ
1223 S. Clearview Ave., Mesa, AZ 85209 • Tel: 480.222.5800
The Vineyard Group gave: $25,000 on 6/23/08, $35,000 on 7/15/08 and $100,000 on 10/29/08.
The Vineyard Group is part of Cardon Hiatt Bowden, a real estate and investment company based in Mesa, AZ. Principals include Elijah and Craig Cardon, Broc Hiatt and Brent Bowden, many of whom were big financial backers of Mitt Romney for President. Broc Hiatt is a Director of the New York based Institute for American Values, where NOM founder Maggie Gallagher is an Affiliate Scholar.
Michele Adams Watterson
$100,000 on 10/29/08 Cache, UT
Watermark Investments, LC
Roger Boyer
$100,000 on 9/17/08 Salt Lake City, UT
Katharine Garff
$100,000 on 10/29/08 Bountiful, UT
Belinda Vandersloot
$100,000 on 10/28/08 Idaho Falls, ID
Belinda Vandersloot is the wife of Melaleuca–The Wellness Company President and CEO Frank Vandersloot. Melaleuca (www.melaleuca.com) is one of the world’s largest online and catalog retailers offering wellness products to its customers, who also enjoy the benefits of community membership.
Does the LDS church or any other church have a right to believe that the family should try to be structured one way? Yes. And, I think every church has a right to promote its teachings.
Does it have the right to tell people they don't have the choice? My understanding is that the church is not telling us whither or not we can choose. They are letting us know what they think the consequences of that choice will be. That is their right.
We have agency to choose. We also have agency to create for our familes the kind of home we wish to have in order to raise children happily and healthily.
What say you on any of this?
Does it have the right to tell people they don't have the choice? My understanding is that the church is not telling us whither or not we can choose. They are letting us know what they think the consequences of that choice will be. That is their right.
We have agency to choose. We also have agency to create for our familes the kind of home we wish to have in order to raise children happily and healthily.
What say you on any of this?
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Runner dedicates medal in Russia to his gay, lesbian friends
Several days ago, American middle distance runner Nick Symmonds was criticized for his statement that he, himself, was an ally to homosexuals, however, he would not turn the race into a gay thing -- he would try to remain silent concerning Russia's anti-gay laws while competing for team USA at the World Track and Field Championships being held in Moscow.
Imagine the surprise when, upon winning the silver medal in the 800 meters, Symmonds was decidedly not silent at all, telling Russia's R-Sport that he would be dedicating his silver medal to his LGBT friends back home in the USA.
Imagine the surprise when, upon winning the silver medal in the 800 meters, Symmonds was decidedly not silent at all, telling Russia's R-Sport that he would be dedicating his silver medal to his LGBT friends back home in the USA.
"As much as I can speak out about it, I believe that all humans deserve equality as however God made them," he told Russian reporters from Moscow's Luzhniki Stadium. "Whether you're gay, straight, black, white, we all deserve the same rights. If there's anything I can do to champion the cause and further it, I will, shy of getting arrested." He continued, "I respect Russians' ability to govern their people. I disagree with their laws. I do have respect for this nation. I disagree with their rules."Symmonds, 29, reported this, his feelings for his LGBT friends and his disdain for the Russian laws restricting homosexuals in Russia to the Russian media itself. He did so at some peril, as the Russian government has recently come out with new laws that prevent not only homosexuals, but any "Propaganda" placing himself at risk.
Monday, August 12, 2013
Elders will be Sisters will be Elders
Sunday, July 28, 2013
Readers, please help me on this one...
This may be a little off subject, but it is something that gay and straight Mormon men of the priesthood deal with, so I'm gonna do it.
There is a woman in our ward Julie that has four kids under nine. Her husband Tod came home from basic training last year and told Julie he was leaving her. I don't know the reasons, and it probably isn't my business. Tod left Julie and the kids in the house for which they had co-signed. (probably $1,000 in mortgage a week.)
Now Tod is ready to marry again and he wants Julie out of the house. A friend of mine is in the legal profession and has read the contract, which states that, unless the matter goes before a judge, the points cannot be changed; Read, Tod, can not force Julie to vacate the home.
However, he is doing that. As usual, when I see something that I perceive as an injustice, I open my big mouth.
I went to a councilor in our bishopric to let him know that she didn't need to move -- as per my lawyer friend also in the ward. The 1st councilor told me that he/they (the bishopric) was/were working with "Tod and Julie" and that everything was fair for Tod and Julie, even though Tod is no longer in the ward. I thought that our ward allegiance would be to the ward member if there was such an alliance.
I thought that any error (when there is none in raising the children from either side) would be solved on the side of in favor of the person who has full custody of the children -- as she does by common consent.
My problem is this. This has happened before. When I married my wife, she had kids the same ages. Every priority was given to the first husband when it came to dealings with the parents of the children. Only the that man met with church leaders to decide what was true or what were the issues -- all done without the mother/former wife -- seemingly because the father had the priesthood (even though in this case he had been dis-fellowshiped some months before.)
Do men have this kind of power in the church -- that they are not to be questioned by a woman or another subordinate? (Gay men in the priesthood?) If you are outside of that group (women) do you get shafted by men who believe only priesthood man have a say, or deference?
Do we priesthood men give the advantage to the guy with the priesthood at the expense of the entire story? Or are we content with the whole story as told by the men with the priesthood?
I don't want to think that. I usually have good experiences with priesthood men trying to get the whole story and take care of the ward members. I expect parity, and when I see a sample of the other, I am shocked.
What to I tell my wife? Do I tell her that if she ever to have an issue with me, her husband, and we go to the church to seek council, they will favor me over her because I have the priesthood?
I'm not telling my wife that. I don't think it's true for the church on a whole. I believe that when this kind of thing does happen, it is on a ward or stake level where men have not learned to respect all members of the church equally.
Readers, do you see this as an equality issue? Will gay men who have done all everything to hold the priesthood of god and are worthy to do so be subject to gays being less-than, like women seem to be treated?
There is a woman in our ward Julie that has four kids under nine. Her husband Tod came home from basic training last year and told Julie he was leaving her. I don't know the reasons, and it probably isn't my business. Tod left Julie and the kids in the house for which they had co-signed. (probably $1,000 in mortgage a week.)
She should have tossed his sorry self while she had the chance. |
However, he is doing that. As usual, when I see something that I perceive as an injustice, I open my big mouth.
I went to a councilor in our bishopric to let him know that she didn't need to move -- as per my lawyer friend also in the ward. The 1st councilor told me that he/they (the bishopric) was/were working with "Tod and Julie" and that everything was fair for Tod and Julie, even though Tod is no longer in the ward. I thought that our ward allegiance would be to the ward member if there was such an alliance.
I thought that any error (when there is none in raising the children from either side) would be solved on the side of in favor of the person who has full custody of the children -- as she does by common consent.
My problem is this. This has happened before. When I married my wife, she had kids the same ages. Every priority was given to the first husband when it came to dealings with the parents of the children. Only the that man met with church leaders to decide what was true or what were the issues -- all done without the mother/former wife -- seemingly because the father had the priesthood (even though in this case he had been dis-fellowshiped some months before.)
Do men have this kind of power in the church -- that they are not to be questioned by a woman or another subordinate? (Gay men in the priesthood?) If you are outside of that group (women) do you get shafted by men who believe only priesthood man have a say, or deference?
Do we priesthood men give the advantage to the guy with the priesthood at the expense of the entire story? Or are we content with the whole story as told by the men with the priesthood?
I don't want to think that. I usually have good experiences with priesthood men trying to get the whole story and take care of the ward members. I expect parity, and when I see a sample of the other, I am shocked.
What to I tell my wife? Do I tell her that if she ever to have an issue with me, her husband, and we go to the church to seek council, they will favor me over her because I have the priesthood?
I'm not telling my wife that. I don't think it's true for the church on a whole. I believe that when this kind of thing does happen, it is on a ward or stake level where men have not learned to respect all members of the church equally.
Readers, do you see this as an equality issue? Will gay men who have done all everything to hold the priesthood of god and are worthy to do so be subject to gays being less-than, like women seem to be treated?
Monday, July 1, 2013
Just a little gay
It's Saturday morning and the game is a-foot -- one game of many -- basketball or softball, or volleyball. We just need a ball.
After the game, we slap each other on the back or butt and there may be some hugging, some "whose ball is this," and some "thanks for letting me use your shoes and no, I won't forget to bring my own next week."
Everyone says "good game whether it was or not, and all are smiling except the guy that got out of control. He pretends to text his wife on his way to the drinking fountain. Then we pack up the baby and holler at the kids who are chasing each other on the stage or playing in the curtains, load up the van or SUV and get home in time to clean the garage, set the sprinklers on the garden, and get the girl to ballet.
Such men, these Mormons. I am one of them.
There are A types and B types and just about every type.
We cry in church. We cry at movies. We cry at testimony meeting because the feelings come at us fast the moment the podium raises up to accommodate out height. Not big crocodile tears or waterworks. There is no huge outpouring of emotion because we release a little at a time all the time.
It is Modern Mormon Masculinity at it's finest, and these are the guys who are called to attend to the details of running the local LDS church.
I have heard Mormon men's land described as "a soft-spoken homo-sociality," or even well trained automitrons (Robert Redford's famous label)and I don't take offence, or have to struggle to understand what they are talking about. After all, Mormon men work together in small groups that become larger groups that encourage two by two groups that perpetuate the everyday functions of the LDS church.
Frankly, it sounds a little gay to me. As someone in the church, who has been in the church for forty years, it feels a little gay as well. And that is OK with me. Of course, some say gay and others say effeminate, and it doesn't really matter which as far as I am concerned. Sensitive is the correct word, I think. It is what it is, and I don't really care what outsiders think of it.
Welcome to Mormon masculinity. It's not a bunch of butch loggers or truckers, firemen or welders. It's everyday sensitive types trying to get and stay in touch with their feelings while listening for that still small voice that comes during quiet times, sometimes while kneeling quietly in prayer with another guy or guys.
Mormons have no paid clergy. Those who donate their time do so with other men who feel as they do and also contribute to the church with not financial compensation. These men work together in sensitive situations where communication is often subtle and not verbal. Working friendships develop in priesthood groups that are unlike anything I have seen in any other organization.
Mormon men work in teams from their youth on. As boys, they are taught "the power of two." Priesthood blessings are given usually in pairs. Leaders select several councilors, and work with other local and area leaders in tandem. These men work with men and love doing it.
Mormon opposition to Gay Brethren?
So why are these men of the LDS church so oppose to gay rights as they support traditional gender rights -- father, mother, sister, brother, pants and dresses and suits and modest clothing. If anyone should understand the plight of the gay man, it should be a Mormon.
The answer is both startling and obvious. Mormon men don't have a problem with marriage rights for those who ask for them -- gays or straights. If Bob wants to marry Bill, then its "congratulations on your union and if I am your friend, please invite me to your ceremony and I will eat some cake and hopefully some chicken salad with grapes and little bits of celery." (yum!)
Mormon men are not nervous to smack a guys butt in basketball. They are not oppose to a sweaty hug, or even a non sweaty hug. They are just fine with taking the baby out to change a diaper or teaching a primary class of screamers and criers. They have been around long enough, in priesthood meetings, to understand the difference between fellowshiping or brotherhood from a bromance. They will give you a hanky when you blubber a bit about your family, and they don't expect it back, knowing that you will wash it and loan it to the next guy.
It is when couples that don't conform to the moral standard of sex after marriage -- a banner still carried by the LDS church -- ask for church endorsement that a wee problem pops up. No one who has sex before marriage can have a marriage endorsed by the LDS church without ceasing the behavior/activity; Not straights, not gays. Most in the LDS church are OK with that and do not expect that the moral standard will change to accommodate homosexuals. Yet they will still welcome you to church on Sunday.
I'll say that again. Gays are willingly accepted into quorums with the understanding that everyone in the room strives for moral cleanliness -- straights and gays alike. (Some of the older ones raise an eyebrow, but this is due more to small town syndrem -- something new and different in town that the locals haven't figured out yet.
So, the brethren at the game may smack your butt or hug you and come to your wedding, but they will not hand you a temple recommend unless the rules have been followed -- morally clean or striving for such. And, though the LDS people are becoming less staunch -- meaning that they are understanding of homosexuals and their lives and loves and leanings -- they will only give temple recommends to those who marry one of the opposite gender.
Given the nature of the ordinance, it would take an edict from God -- literally -- to change that.
But, I can still slap your butt.
After the game, we slap each other on the back or butt and there may be some hugging, some "whose ball is this," and some "thanks for letting me use your shoes and no, I won't forget to bring my own next week."
Everyone says "good game whether it was or not, and all are smiling except the guy that got out of control. He pretends to text his wife on his way to the drinking fountain. Then we pack up the baby and holler at the kids who are chasing each other on the stage or playing in the curtains, load up the van or SUV and get home in time to clean the garage, set the sprinklers on the garden, and get the girl to ballet.
Such men, these Mormons. I am one of them.
I looked much like one of these guys, Only we stacked our books in milk crates, or something equally tacky. |
We cry in church. We cry at movies. We cry at testimony meeting because the feelings come at us fast the moment the podium raises up to accommodate out height. Not big crocodile tears or waterworks. There is no huge outpouring of emotion because we release a little at a time all the time.
It is Modern Mormon Masculinity at it's finest, and these are the guys who are called to attend to the details of running the local LDS church.
I have heard Mormon men's land described as "a soft-spoken homo-sociality," or even well trained automitrons (Robert Redford's famous label)and I don't take offence, or have to struggle to understand what they are talking about. After all, Mormon men work together in small groups that become larger groups that encourage two by two groups that perpetuate the everyday functions of the LDS church.
Frankly, it sounds a little gay to me. As someone in the church, who has been in the church for forty years, it feels a little gay as well. And that is OK with me. Of course, some say gay and others say effeminate, and it doesn't really matter which as far as I am concerned. Sensitive is the correct word, I think. It is what it is, and I don't really care what outsiders think of it.
Welcome to Mormon masculinity. It's not a bunch of butch loggers or truckers, firemen or welders. It's everyday sensitive types trying to get and stay in touch with their feelings while listening for that still small voice that comes during quiet times, sometimes while kneeling quietly in prayer with another guy or guys.
Mormons have no paid clergy. Those who donate their time do so with other men who feel as they do and also contribute to the church with not financial compensation. These men work together in sensitive situations where communication is often subtle and not verbal. Working friendships develop in priesthood groups that are unlike anything I have seen in any other organization.
Notice the hand on another. Happens all the time, folks |
Mormon opposition to Gay Brethren?
So why are these men of the LDS church so oppose to gay rights as they support traditional gender rights -- father, mother, sister, brother, pants and dresses and suits and modest clothing. If anyone should understand the plight of the gay man, it should be a Mormon.
The answer is both startling and obvious. Mormon men don't have a problem with marriage rights for those who ask for them -- gays or straights. If Bob wants to marry Bill, then its "congratulations on your union and if I am your friend, please invite me to your ceremony and I will eat some cake and hopefully some chicken salad with grapes and little bits of celery." (yum!)
Mormon men are not nervous to smack a guys butt in basketball. They are not oppose to a sweaty hug, or even a non sweaty hug. They are just fine with taking the baby out to change a diaper or teaching a primary class of screamers and criers. They have been around long enough, in priesthood meetings, to understand the difference between fellowshiping or brotherhood from a bromance. They will give you a hanky when you blubber a bit about your family, and they don't expect it back, knowing that you will wash it and loan it to the next guy.
It is when couples that don't conform to the moral standard of sex after marriage -- a banner still carried by the LDS church -- ask for church endorsement that a wee problem pops up. No one who has sex before marriage can have a marriage endorsed by the LDS church without ceasing the behavior/activity; Not straights, not gays. Most in the LDS church are OK with that and do not expect that the moral standard will change to accommodate homosexuals. Yet they will still welcome you to church on Sunday.
I'll say that again. Gays are willingly accepted into quorums with the understanding that everyone in the room strives for moral cleanliness -- straights and gays alike. (Some of the older ones raise an eyebrow, but this is due more to small town syndrem -- something new and different in town that the locals haven't figured out yet.
So, the brethren at the game may smack your butt or hug you and come to your wedding, but they will not hand you a temple recommend unless the rules have been followed -- morally clean or striving for such. And, though the LDS people are becoming less staunch -- meaning that they are understanding of homosexuals and their lives and loves and leanings -- they will only give temple recommends to those who marry one of the opposite gender.
Given the nature of the ordinance, it would take an edict from God -- literally -- to change that.
But, I can still slap your butt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)